1921-04-29

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. F. CASGRAIN (Charlevoix-Montmorency) presented a petition on behalf of the Quebec Steamship Company for an Act to amend the Act of Incorporation of the said company. He moved:
That the petition of the Quebec Steamship Company presented this day, praying for an Act to amend their Act of Incorporation, be read and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders for report thereon pursuant to the provisions of Rule 88.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Acting Solicitor General) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 130, to amend the Dominion Elections Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Explain,
please.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is founded on the report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, which has just reached a conclusion on the report made to your Honour by the Chief Electoral Officer. The Bill is prepared strictly in line with the report made by the committee.


Mr. FIELDING:: The Bill appears under the heading of Senate Bills. I suppose that is an error.


Mr. SPEAKER:: That is an error.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 123, for the relief of Joseph Sorton.- Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 124, for the relief of Gladys Frances Annie Wheeler Bernard.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 125, for the relief of William Carr.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 126, for the relief of Ida Florence Keenan.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. 127, for the relief of Gertrude May Turner.-Mr. Ross.
Bill No. 128, for the relief of James Henry Bigrow.-Mr. Harrison.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Emelina Dunsmore.-Mr. Morphy.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOSEPH ARCHAMBAULT (Cham-bly and Vercheres) :: On the 4th of March last two orders were passed by the House for papers. The first was in relation to the amounts loaned or the credits made by-the Government of Canada since April 19, 1920, to Greece and Roumania, and the second asked for a copy of the regulations concerning the official censorship during the war. I should like these papers brought down.


Hon Sir HENRY DRAYTON (Minister of Finance) :: My recollection is that a
return has been made with respect to the loans to Greece and Roumania. I shall inquire into the other matter.



ASCENSION DAY HOLIDAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. ARTHUR TRAHAN (Nicolet) :: I wish to ask the Government if it is true that, notwithstanding the promise or statement which was given by the Prime Minister some days ago, orders have been given by different departments, and especially by the Department of Marine and Fisheries, that Catholic Federal civil servants must work on Ascension Day. I hope that is not true.
?;776


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This same question
was submitted a day or so ago by the hon. member for Charlevoix-Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain). My reason for suggesting that the question be not put on the Orders of the Day is that it is a matter of policy for the Government to decide, and I do not think that any useful purpose will he served by submitting the question. However, if the Government wishes to make an announcement with regard to the matter, I shall offer no objection.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) :: I am glad to have an opportunity of making a statement about this matter. The House will remember the answer that was read in reply to the question of the hon. member for Chambly and Vercheres (Mr. Archa'mibau)lt). Immediately afterwards, instructions were issued to all the departments to follow the course indicated in that answer. The intention of the answer was that the practice that had always prevailed prior to the Bill of last session should be fully restored, my understanding being that the holidays were full holidays to Catholic employees who desired it. But no sooner had the instructions been given, than it transpired in, I think, two departments that this never had been the practice in those departments; that in those departments the practice had always been to take only such time as was necessary for such services as the Catholic employees desired to attend. If the answer meant wihat it might appear to mean on reading it, it would establish a practice wider than had ever been in effect before. Some complication arose as a result of that. The practice was never intended to be extended; it was only intended to restore any that had existed. In order that there may be no misunderstanding, the practice will now be that the full 'holiday shall be given if they desire to take it.



DAYLIGHT SAVING IN OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: In view of the change of time in the city of Ottawa on Monday, may I ask whether the House will sit on Monday at three or four o'clock, Ottawa time ?


Arthur Meighen: I will make a statement on
that subject later in the day.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT SPECIAL COMMITTEE APPOINTED

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen the House returned to the Order: "Motions."
Hon E. K. SPINNEY (Yarmouth and Clare) moved:: That a Special Committee be appointed to consider Bill No. 122, an Act to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, with power to send for persons, papers and records and report from time to time, and that the said Committee consist of Messrs. Spinney, Charters, Scott, Currie, Griesbach, Thompson (Yukon), Calder, Argue, Cruise, Gauthier, Ethier, Denis, Chisholm, D6chdne, Kennedy (Glengarry), and Johnston.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This motion is hardly in accordance with the usual practice, which refers a Bill to a special committee only after its second reading. There is the further circumstances that the motion lacks one day of the required notice. This being the case, the motion can be considered only by unanimous consent. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand that the Bill has not yet been printed in English or French. Should not the second reading of the Bill be proceeded with before it is referred to a committee? We do not know what its provisions are.


Arthur Meighen: The committee cannot get to
work until the Bill is in form to, be submitted to it.	'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I move that the name of Mr. Fournier be substituted for that of Mr. Bureau on the Select Standing Committee on National Railways and Shipping.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
' Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Prime Minister) : I move that the name of Mr. McGregor be substituted for that of Mr. Davidson on the Select Standing Committee on National Railways and Shipping.
Motion'agreed to.

Arthur Meighen: I have not the right to make the motion to-day, but as it is usual in eases of this kind to give notice, leaving one day still open for discussion of the motion, I now give notice that on Monday I shall move that on and after Saturday, May 7th next, until the end of the present session, the House shall sit on Saturdays, and that the order of business on Saturdays shall be the same as on Fridays.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it is desirable that the Orders of the Day for Saturdays should be the same as for Fridays. Why not make it the same as on Tuesdays?


Arthur Meighen: The motion refers to the order of business. I think that what the hon. member has in mind is that we shall go into Supply automatically.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the case.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, if that is understood, I am content.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS PRODUCTION OP PAPERS

Hon. J. D. REID (Minister of Railways) :: The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill), has inquired concerning a return asked for by him a few weeks ago in connection with the Department of Railways. In response to inquiries from the department, I find that the return necessitates investigation by all the departments of Government, but so far as the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned, I desire to make the following statement: On March 19, 1921, the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals wrote to the Under Secretary of State, Mr. Thomas Mulvey, the following letter regarding the return in question:
March 19, 1921.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge, through you, copy of the Order of the House moved for by Mr. Cahill, requesting copy of all official correspondence between the Government of Canada, or any member thereof, and the Government of Manitoba, or any member thereof, respecting sub-section 5, of Clause 325, of the Consolidated Railway Act.
Irt reply, I may say that this Department has had no correspondence of the character indicated.
Yours very truly,
G. A. Bell.
I have requested the Secretary of State's Department to follow up the matter with as great despatch as possible.



GRAND TRUNK ARBITRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Consideration of Amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 80, respecting the Grand Trunk Arbitration.- The Prime Minister.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is rather a little soon to bring on these amendments, which were only completed by midnight last night. I doubt very much whether any member of the House has had a chance to see them. They were only presented to the House at five o'clock this morning.


Arthur Meighen: There is no amendment that goes to the substance of the Bill. I mentioned some days ago that there would probably be amendments, and the amendments that are now before the House are merely in the legal phraseology, to ensure the attainment of the end which the various conditions of the Bill had in view. I do not think there could possibly be any exception taken to the amendments, which are all strengthening the phraseology of the measure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have a
copy of the amendments here and they are as lengthy as the Bill itself. If they are all in legal phraseology, that of itself would make them fairly intricate.


Arthur Meighen: That is all they are.


Mr. BELAND:: The Senate must do
something. [DOT]	.


Arthur Meighen: I may say that the
Grand Trunk have not made any request. We did not meet them in the matter at all until after the Bill had passed the House. They have not made a request for postponement of the date and consequently there is no amendment to that effect. That being so, I think it is very wise on our part that they should know, at the earliest possible moment, exactly what Parliament does, whether it agrees to this Bill or not. I understand that they have called their shareholders to meet on May 12.


William Stevens Fielding: Does the minister
imply that it is merely a question between the Government and the Grand Trunk, and that no one else is concerned?


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not read the
amendments, but I must say that my right hon. friend is unwise in forever pressing Grand Trunk legislation without reasonable notice. At every stage of the Grand Trunk proceedings an attempt has been made to railroad legislation through, and that is a mistake.


Arthur Meighen: I really do not know
what railroading through is, if this is to be regarded in that light. When an order is on the Order Paper, it is subject to be called. Instead of railroading the legislation through, we have met every request for postponement except in one case. I think there is some responsibility in putting the matter off longer, but if hon. gentlemen feel that they would like to study the amendments, I will meet their request again. I earnestly hope, however, that I shall not be met on Monday with the suggestion that I am still railroading this matter through.
Order stands.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT, 1918, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Second Reading of Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918.-Mr. Spinney.
Edgar Keith Spinney: Mr. Speaker, the Bill has not been printed, and I do not think it can be dealt with to-day.


Arthur Meighen: This is merely a skeleton Bill, and as a committee has been appointed to deal with it there is no reason for delay. The Bill is printed and has been distributed, although it is not so referred to on the Order Paper. The whole Bill is being submitted to a committee and will come back to the House, before Committee of the Whole, after going through the special committee that has been appointed to deal with it.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I had better submit
the motion. Mr. Spinney moves that Bill No. 122, to amend the Civil Service Act, 1918, be read the second time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The second
reading is supposed to affirm the principle of a Bill, and we should know something about this Bill before we consider the second reading. I would suggest that we have some explanation as to what this skeleton purports to represent.


Edgar Keith Spinney: Mr. Speaker, it is the usual policy that on the second reading of a Bill full discussion of the merits of the measure should take place. On the present occasion, in order to save the time of the House, I would strongly urge that the customary debate be delayed until after the Bill has been dealt with by the committee to whom it is to be referred. When the Bill is reported to the House, after consideration by that committee, ample time will be granted for debate. If the introduction of the present measure, which proposes to amend the Civil Service Act of 1918, leaves the impression on the mind of any hon. member that the Government is receding from the main principles of that statute, namely the abolition of patronage, he may at once dismiss that thought. In the case of every new measure experience of its working may show inconsistencies and defects to exist which it would be well to discuss and if possible, eliminate. After nearly three years of operation it is claimed that such a condition prevails in connection with this Act. In order that a full and complete investigation of the measure may take place a committee of the House has been appointed to deal with it, power being granted to call for witnesses so as to obtain the evidence necessary to enable that committee to reach correct conclusions and the committee will enter upon its duties without being restricted in any way. As I explained when introducing the measure the limitations provided in the Bill are tentative; they are not intended to influence the committee in any way. It will be entirely within the power of the committee to disallow the limitations, or to amend them, as in its judgment seems desirable. It is stated by many that the efficiency of the public service will be enhanced hy removing from the Civil Service Commission the power to make certain appointments. That does not mean, however, the removal of its jurisdiction, because there is a provision in the proposed amendments under which temporary appointments can be made and the efficiency of such appointees must be established within six months by securing from the Civil Service Commission a certificate of competency before the appointments are confirmed. At this stage I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate the provisions of this amending Bill.
Mr. JAMES A. ROBB (Chateauguay-Huntingdon) : Bearing in mind that the Budget has not yet been presented and that

to-day the Prime Minister has given notice that Saturday sittings will shortly be held, which is an indication that an early closing of Parliament in contemplated, is it the intention of the Government to put this measure through at the present session, or simply to make a study of the Bill so as to be well informed for the session following?


Arthur Meighen: Yes, it is intended to have the measure completed by the committee, and then of course it will be resubmitted to the Government. The Government will then have to consider the Bill as reported from the committee, but it hopes that the House will be able to consider it this session. I do not say that is absolutely certain to be attained but it is the hope of the Government.


Mr. ROBB:: It is the hope?


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


Hon. CHARLES MURPHY (Russell) :: The hon. member for Yarmouth (Mr. Spinney) has explained the principles embalmed on a blank sheet, the paper I now have in my hand. I do not know whether any other hon. member has a copy of the Bill or not. The statement is made that the Bill has been printed, but whether that be a fact or not it has not been distributed, and I for one object to the second reading of a measure about which we do not know any more than we do at the present time. Nor do I see that any force is given to the argument by the statement that the measure is going to a committee. The usual practice is that the principle of a Bill is adopted on the motion for second reading and if it is going to a committee then that committee has the benefit of the expressions of opinion that are elicited during the debate. Now it is proposed to reverse all that and send this Bill-a Bill of vast importance and one which, with all respect to my hon. friend, comes into this House under rather strange auspices-to a committee without our ever having seen it. As a member of the House I protest against this proceeding.


Arthur Meighen: I would not think of even proposing the second reading of a Bill that is merely of a skeleton character without hon. members having seen it-


Charles Murphy: I have not seen it.


Arthur Meighen: -but I made inquiry, and have inquired a second time, and the answer confirms my information that the Bill was distributed at noon to-day. That is not a very long period, but at any rate
the distribution has been made. If we were proposing to go into the merits of the Bill now I would not feel justified at all in asking for the second reading. But such is not the case. The hon. member will also recall the circumstances that the House has already discussed the very principle of this Bill on a motion by the hon. and gallant member for Victoria (Sir Sam Hughes) debated some weeks ago. The House has discussed the subject dealt with by this measure most fully-almost a day's discussion, if I remember rightly, took place then. The Bill is simply a provision for taking a certain class, to be decided by the committee, out of the operation of the Act, and to place certain other classes, or a class, as the committee may recommend, in another category-not out of the operation of the Act but only so far as nomination by the commission goes, and to leave them, as to permanent appointment, under the control of the commission. All I am rising now for, is to say that the House has discussed the policy of the Bill this session in the course of a day's debate. The subject matter that is to be considered by this special committee will later be considered by a Committee of the Whole House and will go through the regular stages. Therefore I would think, especially as this is Friday, that we should enable the special committee to get to work as soon as possible. The hands of the House are not tied in any respect by the passing of this motion; it is merely a method of submitting the question to the special committee-that is all.


Charles Murphy: I am not allowed to
speak a second time but I desire to repeat my protest.


Mr. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East) :: If this Bill means anything it
means that we are going back to political patronage as far as certain classes of public servants are concerned. The Bill removes from the control of the Civil Service Commission:
Postmasters whose remuneration consists in whole or in part of a percentage on the receipts of the office;
Professional, scientific and technical officers employed for the performance of duties as such.
This is very vague and very general, and Heaven knows what men could be appointed under such a heading as "professional, scientific and technical officers."


Charles Murphy: Census enumerators.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, census enumerators for instance. I think we should have



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
time to study this Bill and consider it before we approve of the principle of the measure, and if further delay, is not granted I, for one, will vote against the second reading.
Henri Sévérin Béland: I hate to delay the second reading of this Bill, but it is not customary that the principle of a measure should be discussed by a committee of the House. It must be borne in mind that there is an important principle involved in this Bill. A copy of the measure has just reached me and I find that under clause 3 the powers which formerly belonged to the Civil Service Commission are transferred to the Governor in Council. This appears to be a very important departure from the principle which is now incorporated in this clause, and the adoption of an entirely different principle. I believe there will be a good deal of contentious discussion regarding the transfer of certain powers from this commission to the Governor in Council, and I feel that it is very unusual, and perhaps ill-advised, to transfer to a committee of the House the discussion of such a measure before the principle has first been discussed and decided upon by the House in full.


Mr. C. G. POWER (South Quebec):: Mr. Speaker, before we take up the second reading of this Bill I would like to register my opposition to any measure of this nature. It has been preached throughout the country by hon. gentlemen opposite that the abuses of patronage were to be forever abolished. This Bill, if it means anything, means that in certain services we are to introduce the old abuses of patronage, and this is all the more irregular and all the more to be condemned since we have before us an election which we all hope will be held soon. On behalf of certain of my constituents who voted for hon. gentlemen opposite, believing in their promises to carry on the public services in a way in which they had not hitherto been carried on and that thereby the abuses of patronage weuld be abolished, I think I have a perfect right to register my protest. It is our duty to see that hon. gentlemen opposite are not guilty of any back-sliding, that once having entered on the path of reform and of uplift they shall continue to the end of their days, which we all believe will be soon. It is on behalf of these few but important people of my constituency that I protest against this Bill, and I think it is the duty of every member to see to it that the Government remains true to the promises it made to the electorate in 1917.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I think there is some misapprehension on the part of hon. members opposite as to the real scope and nature of the proposal. While printed as a formal Bill, it is brought before the House now for the purpose of referring it at once to a special committee to thoroughly thresh out the whole matter. I think the hon. minister who introduced the Bill made it very clear that that was the intention of the Government in submitting it in this way. However, as there appears to be some objection on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite, perhaps no great harm will be done if the Bill be allowed to stand over, say, until the beginning of next week, although I anticipate the real work in connection with this Bill will be in the Special Committee, which committee will have to report back to the House, and the whole matter will then be open for discussion.


William Stevens Fielding: Will the right hon. Prime Minister permit me a question? He has told us that a certain number of public official were to be taken out of the control of the Civil Service Commission. Now, will he tell us: When that change is effected what will be the appointing power over those officials?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The Prime Minister,
of course, has exhausted his right to speak, but under the circumstances I would ask the House whether he shall be given unanimous consent to answer the question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Arthur Meighen: Any officials taken out of the Act will be just where they would have been if the Act had not been passed. As regards mere manual labourers, I think the hon. member will recollect that in his own speech he stated that it is unworkable to have these men all over the country under the Civil Service Act; and they will be just where they would be if the Act had not been passed. It is suggested that any class or classes would not be taken out of the control of the Civil Service Commission, but that the nominating power would be placed where many thinlrit would be much more convenient in the public interest to place it.


William Stevens Fielding: Where is that nominating power?


Arthur Meighen: Just where it would
have been if the Act had not been passed.


William Stevens Fielding: That is going back
to the old patronage system.


Arthur Meighen: Not at all. I do not
think even if the Bill passes in its present form it goes so far as the hon. gentleman himself' suggested in his speech in this House.


Mr. T. W. CALDWELL (Victoria and Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, this Bill has been brought on at very short notice and we have had very little time to peruse it. It looks to me like a very radical departure from the policy outlined by the Government when the Civil Service Commission was appointed. We have gone to a great deal of expense in establishing that commission and in getting experts to classify the Civil Service, but if I understand this measure correctly the right is reserved to the Governor in Council to reverse any decisions that have been made by the Civil Service Commission, and that the council is empowered to establish additional classes, grades and positions, to divide, alter or abolish existing classes or grades, and to change, revise, amend and alter the designation or name descriptive of any class or position, and so forth. I think in view of the fact that the Civil Service Commission has been in existence only for a short time it is just possible that the scheme as administered by them has hardly been given a fair trial. While possibly a good number of members are not overly well pleased with the way the scheme has been worked out by the Civil Service Commission, I think it is very unfortunate that just previous to an election, the Government should reserve to ,themselves the right to make these proposed changes, and under the circumstances it may well be looked on with suspicion by the country. I think this Bill should be deferred to give us time to look over it and decide just what it contains.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton North and Victoria) :: Mr. Speaker, for a great many years Kruger's entanglements held the palm, but for the last few years those entanglements have appeared quite simple in contrast to what we have been able to produce under what is known as the Civil Service Act. Last year we were told that to solve the mysteries of this Act it was absolutely necessary to bring in a combination of men known as the Young Company from Chicago. They were here for awhile, and they got so entangled that they had to get out, and an-
176J	i
other set; of men, known as Griffenhagen and Associates, came in to throw some light upon this wonderful Act. They got all befuddled and had to leave. And now we are told we must go back for light and leading to the Civil Service Commission themselves. We started out from the Civil Service Commission, and when they told us the whole thing was beyond them and that they could not do anything with the civil servant, we went to this Mr. Young and his company. Then they got beyond their depth, and from them we went to Griffenhagen. And now we are back to this repeating decimal; we find ourselves where we started. With all the wisdom of Chicago and New York and all these other places, we are thrown back on my good friend from Yarmouth, who has arisen out of the wilderness to give us light and leading. It is a pity he did not tell us long ago that he knew all the time what was wrong; he would have saved the Civil Service no end of trouble. But the point is that our friends on the other side have tasted blood in the appointment of some 24,000 men some few days ago; they are now breaking forth and taking the whole business, and we find leading the van our good friend from Yarmouth. It is too bad that we find this good, respectable one-time Liberal now grinding in the mill of the Philistines.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime Minister is evidently anxious to get along with the business of the House. May I ask him, simply by way of expediting matters, whether there are any more skeletons in the ministerial closet which should be exhibited to the House?
Mr. JOHN BEST (Dufferin) moved the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.
Militia and Defence-Ordnance Arms, Lands, $75,000.
Mr POWER:: We have already passed large sums for inspectors. What is this expenditure intended to cover?


Hugh Guthrie: We have gone over the details of this item with the greatest of care and have pared it down to the last dollar. It covers the purchase of transport and heavy ordnance, field guns, and the reserve of mobilization stores, munitions, clothing, small arms, saddlery, harness,

transport vehicles; the cost of inspection of ordnance, small arms and ammunition; the purchase of land for camp grounds, rifle ranges and drill halls; legal expenses and other disbursements in connection therewith. For the chief inspector of arms and ammunition at Quebec and his staff there is $45,000; for the inspector of arms and ammunition at Lindsay and his staff, maintenance and the like, $11,000; for the inspector of artillery stores at Ottawa, salaries, material, etc., $14,000; and that allows us a leeway for miscellaneous services of $5,000.


Charles Gavan Power: We have already passed an item in reference to details of civil government and I was under the impression that we had voted the salaries of all these officials. Now we fine hidden in other items the salaries of three or four more inspectors. I would like some further explanation from the minister. Who is the inspector of ammunition?
Mr. GtJTHRIE: The inspector of ammunition at Quebec is Mr. Keightley. We have two arsenals, one at Quebec and one at Lindsay. From these arsenals a large amount of ammunition has been turned out, running into many millions, and in that connection it is necessary to have a competent inspector. No loss can be greater or more consequential than that resulting from defective ammunition. The item is reduced this year by $25,000; we have brought it down to the lowest possible figure. There has been no attempt to disguise these items; they are carried now as they have been for fifteen or twenty years.


Charles Gavan Power: The fact that it has been done that way for fifteen or twenty years is no argument. The minister lays before the committee certain details of civil government in which are included salaries of certain inspectors; now, under this item of ordnance arms and lands, we are asked to vote salaries for a number of other inspectors. For example, I understand that there is an inspector of clothing. Where does he live and what does he do?


Hugh Guthrie: The Inspector of Textile Products, in the item that appears in the Civil Government list, is the inspector of clothing.


Charles Gavan Power: Why have an amount
voted to him under this item?


Hugh Guthrie: He is not under this item.


Charles Gavan Power: Why state "inspection of ammunition, clothing, etc.?"


Hugh Guthrie: The word "clothing"
might be struck out. Clothing is not inspected under this vote which is for arms and ammunition. In the old days clothing was under this vote, but it is not now.


Charles Gavan Power: Who are the inspectors of harness, saddlery and stores generally?


Hugh Guthrie: That inspection is done under the Inspector of Leather.


Charles Gavan Power: How much are we voting now for harness?


Hugh Guthrie: No part of this item is for harness. This appropriation is for arms and ammunition, for maintenance, fuel, light, power, telegrams.


Charles Gavan Power: I would suggest that it would be more advisable in future to have these items properly defined and better specified in the Estimates. The minister comes to us with an item headed "ordnance, arms, etc."; he calls it "inspection of ammunition, clothing, harness, saddlery and stores generally." We find that really the item is an item of $75,000 for inspection of arms and ammunition. Am I right in making that statement?


Hugh Guthrie: This item covers arms and ammunition.


Charles Gavan Power: Is this for small arms or for artillery stores?


Hugh Guthrie: About 200,000 rifles
came back to Canada at the end of the war, and of these about 40,000 are at the present moment being overhauled. Many of these arms as returned were found to be more or less defective from wear, rough usage, or loss of some trifling detail' affecting the serviceability of the whole arm. After these 40,000 are repaired, they will be put back into stock. The amount of money involved in stores of arms and ammunition is very large; we have the stores on hand now, and they must be kept in shape and continually examined and inspected; otherwise, on account of deterioration, heavy losses are liable to be incurred.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Is it the intention of the minister to use these rifles when repaired for practice or drill? '


Hugh Guthrie: They will be used for the annual training.


Charles Gavan Power: How many of these rifles were Ross rifles?


Hugh Guthrie: None of the 200,000 that I speak of.


Charles Gavan Power: What became of the Ross rifles which we had in the country?


Hugh Guthrie: They are stored in the arsenals at Lindsay and Quebec. They have not been disposed of or sold. Some of them in England were exchanged for modem service rifles.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the minister any
policy with reference to the further disposal of Ross rifles? Could he give us any idea what quantity of Ross rifles we have on hand for such disposal?


Hugh Guthrie: It is hoped that we can convert a good many of these rifles so as to make them serviceable in cadet and, perhaps, other training, hut at the
4 p.m. present time we have not attempted to do so. We have received quite a number of offers for the sale of these rifles, in lots running from 100 to 10,000, I think 10,000 being the largest quantity of which I have heard. But it was considered, having regard to everything that was going on in the world, that it might be well not to make a sale just at the present time. Consequently, they are now stored.


Charles Gavan Power: Where are the Lee-En-field rifles being repaired, and what is the nature of the repairs that are being carried on?


Hugh Guthrie: The only three places where repairs are going on are Halifax, Lindsay and Quebec.


Charles Gavan Power: Are they plants or establishments?


Hugh Guthrie: The Ordnance Stores workshops are doing the work.


Charles Gavan Power: I presume the repairs will not necessitate the rifles being sent to a factory, for instance, the Ross rifle factory?


Hugh Guthrie: We are doing the work in our own ordnance stores.


Charles Gavan Power: How large a staff has the minister employed in doing repairs to the Lee-Enfield rifles?


Hugh Guthrie: In the Ordnance Stores in each district there is an armourer and four, five or six men. Those are the men who are employed on this work.


Charles Gavan Power: Why is such a large sum as $75,000, or a large portion of $75,000, required for such a small number of men?


Hugh Guthrie: The items are:
Salaries and wages at	Quebec.. .. $37,500
Materials	 1,000
Maintenance, including fuel, light,
power, etc	 6,500
Salaries at Lindsay	 8,500
Allowance for materials	 500
Maintenance, fuel, light, power,
etc	 2,000
Salaries and wages at Ottawa.. 12,500
Materials	 500
Maintenance, fuel, light, power,
etc	 1,000
Miscellaneous Services	 5,000
Total	$75,000


Charles Gavan Power: Who is the officer in
charge of this work throughout the country?


Hugh Guthrie: The Quartermaster
General, General Asihton; at Lindsay, Lt.-Col. White.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: We happen to have in the committee this afternoon distinguished soldiers who have made a name for themselves in the British Empire and the world over. Perhaps it is not always that we have the benefit of their counsel and assistance in a committee of this kind when we are dealing with military matters. There was never anything happened in Canada that gave such a shock to the community and the ordnary layman as the reputation that the Ross rifle obtained. I am a mere layman, knowing nothing about military matters, but I could not help hearing these things. The military men who are in this chamber know what has been the report- that many of our young men have been killed by reason of the baulking and refusal to act of the Ross rifles. Men used to get their hands burned and smashed, and this rifle would not work at all. That has been the report, and there is in this country many a sad heart where a son or more than one had been killed and the father or mother believes that he or they could not have been killed if a better rifle than the Ross rifle had been furnished. That report is abroad in the land. If it is not true, it should be forever set at rest and the public of this country satisfied that such things did not occur. If the report is true that such things occurred, the Ross rifle should not be mentioned in this country again in connection with military matters; it should be scrapped and never put into the hands of anybody if it is such a weapon as we were made to believe that it was. Perhaps we shall never have a better opportunity of settling this matter once and for all than while we are in this committee and have present with us distinguished soldiers who have had experience in con-

nection with this rifle. When they pass from the scene, we shall have nobody with the same first-hand knowledge of this matter that they have. Perhaps this is not the time or the place to discuss that matter; if not, I shall not expect it, but I do think that the Militia Department should set at rest once and for all this controversy about the Ross rifle.


Mr. REID (Mackenzie):: I would like to hear a word from a soldier, a practical man of war, who has used the Ross rifle. I have never used that rifle myself but a very particular friend of mine, a medical man, who has a great reputation as a hunter, and who has used practically every kind of sporting and military rifle there is, about two years ago was very nearly killed by a Ross rifle that he was shooting with. Something went wrong with the mechanism, and the check flew back and struck him on the bridge of the nose, almost blinding him. He had a very narrow escape with his life. I would like to know if the Ross rifle is worth bothering with any more as a rifle for practical purposes in the field of war. My information from returned soldiers is that it is not a suitable weapon in the trenches.


Mr. GRIESRACH:: The story of the Ross rifle, in brief, is that it was introduced into the Canadian militia some time in 1902 or 1903. Up to that time, the Canadian militia had been armed with the long Lee-Enfield, which had been used successfully in the South African war. I have never been able to understand why it was considered necessary that we here in Canada should have a rifle pattern of our own. It is of the very essence of co-operation in military service that all the material which is used shall be standard. Therefore, I think it was a mistake in the first instance to introduce our own rifle which differed from the rifle in use throughout the rest of the Empire. The argument advanced at that time was that it was desirable in the manufacture of rifles that we should be independent, and have a factory of our own and make our own rifles. That argument would be perfectly good still, if we made a standard rifle, but it was decided that we should have a rifle pattern of our own, the latest thing in rifles, and so the Ross rifle came into being. A factory was established at Quebec and the arming of the Canadian militia with the Ross rifle began in 1902 or thereabouts.
My first experience with the rifle was in 1908, when I was attending a board test

of fifty of these rifles in rapid fire. Four per cent of these rifles jammed in the test. Something went wrong with the chamber; there was some weakness in the extractor; after the explosion, the cartridge stuck in the breech and the extractor would not extract it. That seems to have been the difficulty throughout. That was reported on in that year; I was the chairman of the board at that time. After that, the Ross rifle became a political football for the political parties. A lot of men defended it who did not know anything about a rifle, and a lot of men attacked it, who knew less. When the war broke out, the Canadian militia was armed with the Ross rifle, and there at once came a demand all over the world for rifles. It must be assumed that any rifle is better than none at all, and so the Canadian force proceeded overseas armed with the Ross rifle. The unfortunate part of it was-I will say that in favour of the rifle at the moment-that the country was fairly well divided on the value of the Ross rifle. There had been propaganda against it, but on the other hand there were those who favoured it. As a single-shot rifle, as distinct from rapid fire, the Ross rifle was satisfactory; that is to say, in firing single shot there was no heating of the barrel, and generally the extractor worked and the empty shell was withdrawn. There were rapid fire Lists of the Ross rifle in Canada prior to t ie war, at various places and times, and in all these tests a certain number of the rifles would jam That fact was known.
The first severe fighting in which the Canadian troops became engaged was at the battle of Ypres, in April, 1915.' While I was not there, I have been told by hundreds of people-it is a matter of common knowledge, there is no question about it-that the Ross rifles jammed in rapid fire. Those who defend the rifles say, first, that the men were not trained in the manipulation of the bolt. Well, a military rifle should not be so intricate that a man of ordinary intelligence cannot learn to operate the bolt. Next, it was said in favour of the rifle that the ammunition was bad, or at all events was unsuitable to the rifle. Well, troops should not be armed with a rifle that is not suited to all the ammunition supplied. There were six or seven brands of ammunition in use at that time, and the British rifle used them all. I do not know anybody who ever had a Lee-Enfield rifle jam with any of the ammunition that was supplied, though I have heard that they sometimes

did. The fact 3s undoubted that the Ross rifle did jam at the battle of Ypres. Now, if you arm a hundred men with Ross rifles, and it is said before the battle begins that the rifle may jam, the morale of your troops is lowered at the very start. For instance, if you went out to hunt a grizzly bear that was known to be very vicious, you would not stand up when it charged if you had a rifle that you thought might go wrong. Well, there was a tremendous amount of jamming of the Ross rifles. Scarcely any of them stood up under lengthy fire, and the morale of the Canadian troops was seriously damaged in consequence. At the conclusion of the battle, our men threw their rifles away and picked up British rifles that were lying all over the battlefield. It is a matter of common knowledge Ross rifles were lying in heaps all over the place. That is the story of the first division.


Henri Sévérin Béland: I do not understand how the men could secure the Lee-Enfield rifle on the battlefield.


Mr. PECK:: There were thousands of British dead lying around.


Henri Sévérin Béland: What about the first part of the battle?


William Antrobus Griesbach: In the early part of the battle the Canadian troops were using the Ross rifle, but as they moved about the field they would pick up a Lee-Enfield and throw their Ross rifle away. As I have said, the Ross rifles were lying in heaps all over the field at the end of the battle. Finally they were armed with the Lee-Enfield rifle and never had anything more to do with the Ross.
Then the Second Division came over to France armed with the Ross rifle. In the meantime, there had been a great deal of tinkering with the Ross rifle in England, reaming out the breach and strengthening the bolt head, and then there were divided opinions as to whether what was being done to the bolt head was doing it more harm than good. Immediately there was a difference of opinion on that question, and there was a sort of political line-up, one might say, on the issue. The Second Division was pretty closely watched, and I may say that an order was issued in that division threatening rigorous punishment to any man who possessed himself of a Lee-Enfield rifle. I have a copy of that order. Then the Third Division came out armed with the Ross rifle, with the exception of the Princess Patricia's, who had never
been armed with that rifle. There was considerable discussion regarding the merits of the Ross rifle, and the Third Division troops, who had somewhat more to do with the First Division troops than had the Second Division, coming more in contact with the men of the First Division, were told all about the Ross rifle; and the men of the First Division, by their conversation, very seriously impaired the confidence of the Third Division in the Ross rifle. Indeed, so much so was this that we felt called upon to see whether we could not re-establish confidence in that rifle. At that time we were informed that we should have to use the Ross rifle because there were no Lee-Enfield's to be had. I desire to lay stress on that point.


Mr. EDWARDS:: At what period of the war was that?


William Antrobus Griesbach: I am speaking now
of the period from November, 1915, onward. The Second Division arrived in France with the Ross rifles in September, 1915. The Third Division was formed early in January, or thereabouts, of 1916, although some of the troops of that division had been in France prior to that time, and they were the men who were talked to by men of the First Division. We were told-I do not know that I can cite authority-that we should have to use the Ross rifle because there were no Lee-Enfield rifles available for issue. As to the truth of that, I can express no opinion, but I do know that, whether or not there were other rifles to be had, we were told that the Ross rifle was the only one available. In order to try to restore confidence on the part of the men in the Ross rifle I conducted a test in my own unit. I had one hundred men of each company fire, or attempt to fire, one hundred rounds at a target, rapid fire, and I turned in the results of the test. Some of the rifles jammed at as low as the third round, while the highest number of rounds fired in rapid fire was sixty. There was one man who got off, I think, about ninety rounds. Now, the rifles were clean, the ammunition was selected, and the men were specially trained, because the test was put on with a view to demonstrating that the rifle was all right. But the test had the contrary effect. It demonstrated that the rifle was not all right, and so far as morale was concerned, the condition was worse then than before, because what theretofore had been merely doubt, became more or less certainty. Then came service in the trenches.


Mr. MORPHY:: Did the hundred men
in question make a test with any other rifle under rapid fire?


William Antrobus Griesbach: No. There were
four hundred men, one hundred from each of four companies, each man firing one hundred rounds of ammunition. There was no necessity for a test of the Lee-Enfield because its reliability was not in question by the troops who had used both or either. On the first of May we were attacked quite heavily and rapid fire was opened. The two companies with which I was connected slackened fire, and I went amongst them. I discovered that the rifles were jammed, and the actual statistics showed that one company averaged, I think, twenty-seven rounds. In another company their record was not strictly accurate, but they informed me that two-thirds of the rifles had jammed. I found the men trying to open the bolts of the rifles with their boots, and some tried to beat the bolts open with their entrenching tools. I found the men in a very bad way, using expressive language, while some of them were almost crying. Altogether the situation was pretty bad. I promised them that they would never have to use the Ross rifle again, although I had no authority to make such a promise. I told them, however, to help themselves to Lee-Enfield rifles whenever they could, and thereupon there sprang up a traffic between my men and the men in the British hospitals. The price of the Lee-Enfield was five francs. A man going to a British hospital would put his rifle in charge of the orderly, and get a check for it, and the orderly was willing to put a Ross rifle in its place for five francs. In that way I almost succeeded in re-arming my battalion with Lee-Enfields. Then came some fighting at Hooge, and the Ross rifles again jammed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Did the private himself have to pay the five francs in order to get the Lee Enfield?


William Antrobus Griesbach: The private himself paid it. We were armed partly with Ross rifles and partly with Lee Enfields. In the meantime, attempts had been made to get an issue of Lee Enfield rifles authorized. We were first of all confronted with the statement that it was difficult to get Lee-Enfields because there were not enough of them, and of course one was also conscious of the fact that the old discussion still persisted and that there were still friends of the Ross. However, after the fighting at Ypres in June an order was
[Mr. Griesbach. 1
finally issued re-anming everybody with the Lee Enfield.
The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Reid), speaks of the danger of the bolt blowing out. As a matter of fact, if the Ross rifle has anything to recommend it, apart from its accuracy-because it is a very accurate rifle-it is the fact that, in the interlocking of the bolthead, it is a stronger rifile than almost any other, because the bolt-head interlocks at the base, and the chamber has really a stronger bolt-blocking than almost any other rifle I know of. I do not recall having heard of any Ross rifle bolts blowing out, but I have heard of this having happened in connection with Lee-Enfields. Of course, there may possibly have been bolts that blew out on Ross rifles, but that is not the objection to that rifle. It would be a technical defect in any event, and would not amount to very much. The fatal objection is that it will not stand up to rapid fire because it jams, and that has been proved absolutely to the hilt. There cannot be much discussion on that point. But in addition to this fatal defect, there was the question of the desirability of our having the same riffle as used by the troops from other parts of the Empire. We were going to cooperate with them, and there was no reason why we should not have the same equipment, because they have the facilities and the means for the testing of military equipment in England, and they are willing to spend more time and money in this direction than we can.
The hon. member for Cape Breton North and Victoria (Mr. McKenzie) raises another question. A good deal has been said on the subject the hon. member has brought up, that as a result of being armed with the Ross rifle many men were killed. I really do not know how just that accusation is.
I heard it made by a man who lost his son at Ypres in 1916. It was very unjust for two or three reasons. First, the son was serving in the Princess Patricias who were armed with the Lee-Enfield, not the Ross rifle at all. In the second place it was purely an artillery encounter and our men might just as well have been armed with shotguns in that particular battle. In the first battle of Ypres there was no doubt the firing of the Canadian troops was very much less effective, and the enemy enjoyed a certain immunity, from the fact that the Canadians were armed with an inferior weapon. It might be possible that in that engagement there were advantages to the enemy and disadvantages to us which re-

suited in heavier casualties, but at that time I do not think there was very much doubt that no other rifle was to be had, no other rifle was available.
Now that is the story of the Ross rifle as I know it. I never had any use for it myself. I discouraged the use of the weapon at its inception-I thought its use unwise and unsound. I knew that it was defective in its bolt manipulation and rapid fire and absolutely proved it to be so by actual use. As I have said, it is a very accurate rifle, there are very few more accurate rifles than the Ross. But it is not a military weapon which stands up to the tests which actual warfare put upon it.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: May I ask the minister
if they are making Ross rifles in Canada, and if so whether it comes under this vote?


Hugh Guthrie: No, the manufacture
was discontinued three years ago.


Mr. MAHARG:: Are you still using
them in the service at all?


Hugh Guthrie: No, we are not using
them.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Would it not be a
wise policy to provide the young soldier, from the very inception of his training up to the time he would have to go into actual warfare, with the very best arm available? Is it not a mistake to allow our young men to be trained in the use of a rifle that is defective. I am very much obliged to the distinguished general (Mr. Griesbach) for the history of the Ross rifle which he gave a few moments ago, but it is not at all clear that grievous mistakes have not been made in connection with the use of this rifle. It is a sad thing that we ever had occasion to use it. I am afraid it has aroused the painful impression that it may have been instrumental in causing the death of many of our young men. I would suggest having nothing further do to with this rifle. If there is any material in it that can be put to any good purpose I suppose that should be done; but the Government would be well advised to get rid of it altogether. The Ross rifle should be used no more by our militia.


Mr. GOULD:: I am not unmindful of
the fact that the minister welcomes recognition of reduction in expenditure in his department. I notice that this item has been reduced this year by the sum of $25,000 and I would ask the reason for that?


Hugh Guthrie: It is for the remodelling of the arms in our ordnance stores, it is thought we can get along with a smaller amount than we did last year. The work will be curtailed this year, and I trust will be a litle further curtailed next year.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Is there a rifle being
made under the auspices of the Government of Canada? If so, where is it being made, what is the pattern, and what is the number?


Hugh Guthrie: Not at present; we are not manufacturing any rifle.


Mr. PARDEE:: Do I understand there
is an inspector of textiles in connection with the department?


Hugh Guthrie: There is, and he has
the inspection of all our clothing and the like. His name is included in the Civil Government Estimates.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: What salary does he
draw?


Hugh Guthrie: A salary of $2,800.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is there an assistant in his office?


Hugh Guthrie: There was, but not this year.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What use is now being made of the arsenal at Quebec?


Hugh Guthrie: They are manufacturing both ,small-arm ammunition and some 18-pounder ammunition, I think about four and a half million rounds of the former.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What is the rifle?


Hugh Guthrie: The service rifle, the Lee-Enfield that we are using.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Where are you getting the Lee-Enfields?


Hugh Guthrie: At the end of the war a large number of them returned with the troops from England.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: They are not being made in Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: No.'


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pay of Staff, $265,000.
Charles Gavan Power: What staffs are included in this item?


Hugh Guthrie: The headquarters and district staffs.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the Militia Council included?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the salary of the vicepresident of the Militia Council included in this also?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: And that of the general staff and of the different branches in Ottawa?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask the minister to give us the number of officers whose salaries are covered by this item, and also the number of non-commissioned officers and men?


Hugh Guthrie: This applies to fifty officers including the officers in the headquarters and the staffs of all the military districts in Canada-for the headquarters, $98,400; for the districts, $154,700. There is a general balance left for contingencies of $11,000.


Charles Gavan Power: How much of this amount is voted for the non-commissioned officers and men and how much for the officers?


Hugh Guthrie: There is no pay for the non-commissioned officers in this item.


Charles Gavan Power: It is only for the officers?


Hugh Guthrie: Just-for the headquarters and district staffs.


Charles Gavan Power: There is no other expenditure under this item than the salaries of staff officers?


Hugh Guthrie: That is right.


Charles Gavan Power: How many of those officers are above the rank of colonel?


Hugh Guthrie: The vice-president of the Militia Council is a major-general.


Charles Gavan Power: Who is he?


Hugh Guthrie: Major-General Fiset.
The chief of the general staff is a major-general; the quartermaster-general is also a major-general.


Charles Gavan Power: Who are they?


Hugh Guthrie: The quartermastergeneral is Major Ashton. The chief of the general staff is General MacBrien. The adjutant general is General Elmsley; the master-general of ordnance is General Morrison.


Charles Gavan Power: In the headquarters of the military districts how many officers have we above the rank of lieutenant-colonel?


Hugh Guthrie: In No. 1 district there is only one over the rank of lieutenant-colonel, General Panet; in No. 2 district, General Williams; in No. 3 district, General King. General Hill has the overseas rank of brigadier-general. In No. 4 district, General Armstrong is the only one above the rank of lieutenant-colonel.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: What district is No. 4?


Hugh Guthrie: Montreal. In No. 5, Quebec, General Landry; No. 6, St. John, General McDonald; No. 7, Halifax, General Thacker; Nos. 8 and 9 districts do not exist.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Where are they?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think they ever had any existence at all.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: There are thirteen districts?


Hugh Guthrie: No. 10 is Winnipeg, General Ketchen; No. 11, Victoria, General Ross; No. 12, Regina, General Orme; No. 13, General Bell.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister has evidently forgotten some of them. He has a general here, for instance, General Bur-stall. .


Hugh Guthrie: He is not in the districts; he is inspector-general with headquarters at Ottawa.


Charles Gavan Power: Would the minister give the names of other generals in Ottawa who are not connected with the Militia Council?


Hugh Guthrie: Inspector-General Bur-stall is the only one.


Charles Gavan Power: I hate to correct the minister, but I know of another general, a very gallant soldier, Brigadier-General Swift.


Hugh Guthrie: He retired four or five months ago.


Charles Gavan Power: He was in the service
up to about two months ago.


Hugh Guthrie: He retired in January.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Has the principle ever been considered of enlarging the districts and in that way decreasing the staffs?
I may be wrong, but it occurs to me, if war is practically relegated to the far distant future, as we all hope, that as a matter of economy the minister might take into consideration the idea that springs from my inquiry-a reduction in the personnel, even if all those who are now in the service should be pensioned liberally, realizing

as I do that men who have engaged in a military occupation have a claim on the country's service as they have unfitted themselves for any other occupation. I believe it would popularize the Government if in the quest of economy they would proceed along the lines of reducing military expenditure, and I offer this suggestion as one way of achieving that result, if not on these Estimates at least at some future time.
I believe public opinion would be strongly behind the Government if they would make some effort to remodel the service by enlarging the districts and reducing the staffs. I am speaking without knowledge of the subject, but I would like to have an expression of view, in the hope that something may come of it in the country's best interests.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I think the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy) struck the right note when he said that he was talking without knowledge of the subject. Any one conversant with the principles of military organization knows that the system of districts in one form or another is used in all armies. The two districts, Nos. 8 and 9, were never set up. I for one would be strongly opposed to cutting down the staffs of the districts; if anything, I think they are too small. Coming back to the war, there is a certain public opinion in this country and you cannot mention anything about the militia unless some fool shouts "Militarism!" You cannot throw militarism around a man like a blanket, militarism is a state of mind. It takes a century or more to make a people militaristic, and you could not make the Canadian people militaristic in a century. The only opposite means of maintaining the defence of a country, if you do not want conscription, is to maintain a strong voluntary organization, and in order to do that you have to have military districts. A lot of brilliant young soldiers came back from the war who desired to keep up soldiering-I did not, I had all the soldiering I wanted-and they were trying to establish a system under which we would have permanent adjutants, sergeants, and orderly-room clerks. But the country would not stand for this extra expense, so we have lost all those bright young men, and I think we made a great mistake, for they would have been a great source of strength to our militia organization. I should be very much opposed to the cutting down of the military districts. I think it would be a great mistake. If we are going to have any kind
of organization we must have the division of districts. I am as strong against militarism and conscription as any man in this House, but what is the use of talking nonsense? Aren't you going to defend your country? What are you going to do about it? What we need is a strong voluntary system, and that you can have only by proceeding along rational lines of efficiency.


Charles Gavan Power: Outside the generals
named-Fiset, Ashton, MacBrien, Elmsley, Morrison, Burstall-are any other generals in Ottawa included in this vote?


Hugh Guthrie: No.


Charles Gavan Power: Outside the eleven officers of the rank of general mentioned' as being under certain military districts, are there any other generals employed by the department?


Hugh Guthrie: There is the commandant of the Royal Military College, General Macdonnell. Then there is a brigadier-general whose rank is only that of a colonel in the militia, General McNaughton.


Charles Gavan Power: What pay and allowances does he draw?


Hugh Guthrie: He gets the pay of a director on the staff


Charles Gavan Power: Are there any other brigadier-generals?


Hugh Guthrie: One in Kingston,whom I mentioned.


Charles Gavan Power: Are there any others,
either in the districts or in Ottawa?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand not.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I fear that the gallant member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) has rather misinterpreted my motives in the few remarks I made a moment ago. I am disposed to agree with him that none of us are enamoured of militarism. I hope he did not think I was; in fact, my remarks would rather tend the other way. I am sorry that the gallant member made reference to the talking of nonsense, for I was simply asking for information. I professed to know a little about public opinion in this country, because there have been expressions of opinion-throughout the whole of Canada, I have no doubt-in the press and otherwise, referring to the establishment of the League of Nations and expressing the hope, entertained on the part of all classes of the people in this country and throughout the world, that if the League of Nations does not succeed

in putting an end to war during the lifetime of most of us, it will do so during the lifetime of our children. I am not so sure that that will he the effect, but I am sure of this, Mr. Chairman; that following upon the Great War through which the world has so lately passed, the feelings of the people have been so shocked that they are drawing as far away as possible from the idea of war. My own idea is that the Government should fall in line with the sentiment which actuates the people and spend as little on war services as possible -spend the minimum, not the maximum amount. I believe that that is the public sentiment in Canada to-day. When I rose I desired to get an opinion from the minister whether there was not some way in which the militia expenditures could be decreased by reducing the number of officers in districts through the enlargement of some districts and the abolition of others. I believe that no one in this House or out of it who knows me would have the temerity to accuse me of not being willing to stand in the defence of my country. I feel that I am actuated by patriotic and loyal sentiments, and while the indirect reflection which the gallant colonel (Mr. Peck) evidently intended to make is resented, it is not bitterly resented, because I could see in the fervour of the gallant soldier that spirit which would naturally be characteristic of an heroic man who had come out of the greatest Armageddon that the world has ever known. While I appreciate his bravery and his prowess and the signal honours that have been bestowed upon him, I as a civilian and representing a constituency of this country, having regard to the times and the conditions, not forgetting the great debt with which we are burdened, felt it was my duty at least to suggest to the minister that he might bring his mind to bear upon the Militia Estimates in such a way as to save money to the country if possible, at the same time amply providing for the country's defence and ensuring that worthy men at present in the service should be cared for in the case of any reduction in the district staffs. On the whole, I think the adoption of any such course would save the country many hundreds of thousands of dollars yearly.


Charles Gavan Power: How much, approximately, is paid to these nineteen generals?


Hugh Guthrie: For the districts, $66,000; and at the headquarters, $44,000.


Charles Gavan Power: The total vote for pay of staff is $265,000, so there would remain for

other officers of the staff who are not fortunate enough to be generals, the sum of $155,000. Included in the vote is there any allowance for travelling, for services, for batmen or messengers?


Hugh Guthrie: No. This is a consolidated rate, it includes all the items except necessary travelling expenses which are in a transportation item.


Charles Gavan Power: Then I am to take it that this $11,000 is for the pay of generals, and the remaining $165,000 is for pay of officers below the rank of generals?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: How many of these
officers are subalternsi?


Hugh Guthrie: No subalterns on the
staff.


Charles Gavan Power: How many captains?


Hugh Guthrie: No captains on the
staff.


Mr. POWERS:: How many majors?


Hugh Guthrie: Eight or ten majors.


Charles Gavan Power: Therefore, of the fifty
officers, we have, roughly, 19 generals, 8 majors, and the remainder are colonels?


Hugh Guthrie: Lieutenant-colonels.


Charles Gavan Power: Lieutenant-colonels, or
colonels. Would it not be possible for the minister to carry on the administration of the headquarters staff at Ottawa and the headquarters staffs in the various districts, without having so many highly paid, high-ranked officers? Some of my hon. and gallant friends on the other side,
I think, will be able to tell the minister that, while those generals and other high officers are very useful, while we practically must have them, really a large proportion of the work of the army has been done by subalterns and other officers below the rank of lieutenant-colonel and colonel. They will also be able to tell him, I think, that an officer holding the rank of colonel could carry on just as well the duties of the position of head of a military district as an officer holding the rank of general. The minister knows as well as I do that an army in the field-which is where an army should be, and is, in its greatest state of efficiency-an army of one division of fighting men of some eighteen or twenty thousand rifles, would not have anything near -the number of generals which this small permanent army of ours of 3,800 men has. It is an anomaly to be able to handle a fighting force of 18,000 to 20,000

men with perhaps five, six or, at most, ten generals, while to carry on the administration of a force of 3,800 men who, whatever may be their abilities in war time, are certainly not fighting nor carrying on the arduous duties of their profession, eighteen or nineteen generals and as many more lieutenant-colonels and colonels are required. The whole administration is apparently confided to the most highly paid officers. My hon. and gallant friends opposite know that the last war was called a subalterns' war. If subalterns were able to carry on the fighting, they should have some share in the fruits of victory and the spoils of war when they return.


Hugh Guthrie: I would admit at a
glance that in the higher ranks we have more than one would ordinarily expect in regard to our staff. As I am sure my hon. friend (Mr. Power) wil realize, this is a result of the war. Many
5 p.m. of these men formerly occupied junior ranks, and during or as a result of the war, they have risen and now they have senior rank. The appropriation which we ask for the staff is a modest one, not very much more than it was before the war, and $80,000 less than it was last year. That is a pretty serious cut in the staff. I have endeavoured to cut out every office possible in that staff, and I have succeeded in cutting out a number of them. The result is an appropriation of $80,000 less than that of last year and not much more than was paid under the Liberal administration when they did not have these high officers.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister has repeatedly, in answering arguments from this side, stated that he is not spending much more than was spent under the Liberal regime. It is not an answer to me to tell me what the Liberal administration did. I am under the impression that they spent far too much.


Hugh Guthrie: That may be.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sure we are spending far too much, because the danger has been removed.


Hugh Guthrie: What was spent under the Liberal regime was according to the good sense of the country in those days, and they were fair-minded men. I am using that as a comparison. There has been a tremendous increase in rent, salaries and the like, but there has not been a tremendous increase in the staff appropriation. You have the high officers entitled to the higher pay, it is true, and they have earned their
promotion in the hardest school in which they could earn it. Ordinarily, or before the war, there were only one or two or, perhaps, three of the rank of general at headquarters. To-day there are more, and the men whom we have there are, by reason of their experience in the war, the most experienced and capable men who have ever administered the militia of Canada. It is not fair for my hon. friend to say that we have nineteen generals to administer the affairs of 3,800 men. That is the least part, about twenty per cent of their work; seventy-five or eighty per cent is the administration of the militia of Canada. I think comparatively few of the Permanent Force officers devote themselves to work of that kind.


Charles Gavan Power: We have more generals in the militia force.


Hugh Guthrie: There are some retired ones. Rank has been conferred upon them. But this does not cost the country anything. It is a high and honourable distinction, and if it is a matter of no expense to the country, no great objection should be taken to it. The administration of the militia in the various districts scattered throughout the country costs money and takes time. The work of the staff in connection with the Permanent Force is less than one-quarter of the actual work or the actual time of the staff.


William Cameron Edwards: Who is president of the Militia Council?


Hugh Guthrie: The minister.


William Cameron Edwards: The vice-president of the Militia Council is the deputy minister?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


William Cameron Edwards: What salary does the vice-president of the Militia Council receive as such, and is that additional to the salary that he receives as deputy minister?


Hugh Guthrie: It is additional. He is a major-general on the staff, and for that he receives $4,500. Under the law passed by this Parliament, he is seconded for duty as deputy minister, but he is entitled to his pay as major-general on the staff.


William Cameron Edwards: Are any other staff officers in receipt of any pay or emolument outside of that contained as their salaries in this item?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not think any of them have any-other emolument whatsoever, unless it is private funds.


William Cameron Edwards: How long has the position of vice-president of the Militia Council been held by the deputy minister? Was it formerly held by another officer?


Hugh Guthrie: It has been held by the deputy minister since 1906.


Mr. MARTIN:: How many colonels are there in district No. 6 at Halifax?


Hugh Guthrie: Lieutenant-Colonel Anderson, General Staff Officer, and Colonel Sharpies, assistant adjutant and quartermaster-general. These are the only two, I am informed.	,


Peter Francis Martin: Do they both receive the same salary?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, $4,200.


Oliver Robert Gould: In reply to a question I asked the minister when his Estimates were before the House last, as to why Military District No. 12 had not been disbanded, I was informed that Saskatchewan had proved to 'be such a good recruiting ground, and further, his answer contained the implication that while we might not have now any military barracks, training areas, rifle ranges, or anything of that sort, the day would come when we would have these things in Saskatchewan. I have risen for the purpose of telling the minister that the people of Saskatchewan do not want them. I am sure of that. It does not matter how frequently hon. and gallant members on the Government side rise in their places and attempt to cast a stigma on hon. gentlemen on this side who wish to express their views on these questions just as conscientiously as hon. gentlemen on the other side-and I believe, with more public opinion behind them-I say it does not matter whether I as an individual be charged with cowardice and have epithets hurled at me by these hon. gentlemen. I say that when hon. and gallant members stand in their places and hurl epithets at individuals on this side, (as has been done on two occasions) that in itself is an indication of the militaristic spirit. It is that spirit that I, speaking for the people of this country object to.
I maintain with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) that the moneys we are asked to vote here are not going for the defence of our country, as is claimed by the hon. and gallant member, but for the purpose of paying, in many instances, fat salaries to parasites. The Department of Militia and Defence is not productive. We are asked to spend about $11,750,000 for the Department of Militia and Defence. Com-
pare that with the $4,500,000 or $4,750,000 that we are spending on agriculture. Agriculture is productive. We have no honourary colonels receiving fat salaries in agriculture. I ..j&tand in my place here and say a few words to the best of my ability in the interests of agriculture, and I would like to know how much sympathy agriculture has received in this House. I would like to see hon. gentlemen stand up for the interests of agriculture, instead of urging us to vote this $11,750,000 for the Department of Militia and Defence, while agriculture goes begging. We have the wrong perspective as a people. If this money were for the purpose of providing training grounds and things of that nature, it might not he so bad; and if, as my hon. friend from Quebec South has pointed out, only the number of officers actually required to train the men were engaged, I would not be so antagonistic; but I must protest against voting large sums of money -and I gave the figures to prove it the last time I spoke-for salaries for men who walk around in an almost Prussian manner, brushing people off the sidewalk. That is the spirit of militarism that this country is asked to pay for, and it is against that spirit that I as an individual protest. I am sorry that we have men who approve of that sort of thing.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: If my hon. friend is alluding to me-or if he is not, I will say it anyway. I never said anything that reflected in any shape or form on any hon. gentleman opposite, and I think hon. gentlemen opposite will bear me out when I say that since I entered this House I have never said anything to hurt the feelings of any one. I have never had any such intention and I hope that the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould) who is a younger member than I, although I am pretty young myself, will moderate his language more when he speaks of the gallant men who rendered such great services in this great war and who are now in our military organization. It does not become hon. members in this House to reflect on them. They are carrying on what they were trained to do, and they are doing it well. As far as I am concerned, I do not think 1 used intemperate language. I think probably the hon. gentleman lives in a glass house in that respect.


William Cameron Edwards: I would like to say in reply to the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Gould's) remarks that I was a little surprised to find him objecting to high salaries. I

thought the paying of high salaries was something that was approved by the particular cult to which he belongs; because I believe the head of the organization to which he owes allegiance is receiving a salary of some $15,000 odd a year.


Mr. MACKIE (Edmonton) :: It is $18,000.


William Cameron Edwards: It is going up all the time;-$18,000 to a gentleman who does not seem to think it is worth while to spend a little while in this House in advocating the rights and interests of the farmers of this country. It comes with mighty bad grace from my hon. friend from Assini-boia (Mr. Gould) to read anybody a lecture for lack of interest in the farmers of this country, when the leader of the Farmers' party spends less time in this House than any other member of the House.


John Flaws Reid: Does he go
home every week-end?


William Cameron Edwards: In regard to hurling epithets across the floor, of which the hon. member complains, who was the first to start that? The hon. member for Assini-boia was the first to stand on his feet in this House some days ago, and with a view solely to making a little cheap capital for himself, charge that there was a militarist party in this country-a charge which has no foundation whatever. There is no militaristic spirit in-Canada; there has not been any militaristic spirit in Canada. As the hon. and gallant member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) very properly said, you could not arouse or create a militaristic spirit in this country in the course of a century or more. What object had the hon. member for Assiniboia in getting up in this House a few days ago and trying to represent to the people of this country that there was a set of men in this House who, regardless of the interests of the people, were trying to drive us in a military direction? His object was as I stated a moment ago simply to create for himself a little cheap political capital, to give the impression in his part of the country, where I suppose he would send his speech, that the members on this side of the House were extravagant and reckless in their expenditure of money, particularly for military purposes, and that the people there could thank God a man had been discovered in Assiniboia to come down here and plead the rights of the people and to advocate economy. That was his whole object. The hon. member and certain other hon. members have not discussed the militia items, or other items that have been before the committee, on their merits; they have talked simply with the idea of creating the idea,-an absolutely false idea-throughout the country that we on this side are not actuated by motives of economy. The hon. member has no reason to make complaints about any expressions regarding members on the other side. He was himself the first to make charges that have no foundation in fact, using such terms as "Prussianism" and applying them directly or indirectly to members on this side. Those epithets, whether the hon. gentleman realises the fact or not, are insulting, and I say that his reflections have been absolutely unwarranted and have been actuated, in my humble estimation, by a desire on his part to obtain for himself a little cheap notoriety in the section of the country from which he comes.


Oliver Robert Gould: In reference to the statements of the member for Skeena (Mr. Peck), it seems to me that there is an attempt to draw some comparison in value, if I may say so, between the individual who wears the khaki and the man who does not, who is engaged in the supposedly menial work of agriculture. Now, I want hon. gentlemen to show some sense of equity and equality. Because an officer has gone to the war and won his laurels, that is no reason why the private, who did just as much, should be asked to suffer undue taxation in order that the general may go around at ease. My complaint is that we have too many men of that rank, and the moneys that we are asked to vote for the purpose of keeping these gentlemen walking around the country doing no actual good, can be used to better advantage. The revenues of the country will not stand this burden. I say that the private man, the man who produces, the tiller of the soil, served his country during the war, in producing those things without which we could not have carried on, and he should not be called upon to provide the means of enabling these men of rank to remain idle. "Peace hath her victories no less renowned than war"; and the producer is entitled to some credit as well as the fighter. We have no emoluments to throw away, and no moneys to expend on anything that is not absolutely essential.


William Antrobus Griesbach: It is rather difficult to follow the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gould), and to find out just what he wants. He began by stating that he spoke
- COMMONS
for the people of Saskatchewan, and concluded with the declaration that he spoke for the people of Canada; and in that speech he asserts that there is no need whatever for this staff, and that the defence of the country-[DOT]


Oliver Robert Gould: I rise to a point of order. I did not make the statement that we had no desire whatever for the staff.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Will the hon. member say what he does mean?


Oliver Robert Gould: I made the statement that we had too many men of this kind, and I stand by that statement. I did not say, however, that we had no desire whatever for the staff.


William Antrobus Griesbach: Does the hon. member know how many staff officers there are in the district from which he comes?


Oliver Robert Gould: I can get the figures.


William Antrobus Griesbach: The hon. gentleman has, on several occasions, confessed that he does not know anything about the subject, but he usually proceeds to tell us all about it. He complains about the size of the staff in the district from which he comes, and when I ask him what is its size he says he does not know. Well, that is a fair indication of his knowledge of the whole subject. Now, the creation of a staff is a matter of a lifetime. The securing of suitable men takes years, and any man who knows anything about the matter knows how much work is involved in gathering a proper staff. In agriculture, I believe, there is an organization to which the member for Assiniboia belongs, and the chief of that organization draws $18,000 a year from it, and $4,000 a year from this House.


Oliver Robert Gould: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member is now speaking on a subject of which he is ignorant. The president of the association to which he refers does not receive five cents of a salary.


William Antrobus Griesbach: There is not an organization in this country-


An hon. MEMBER:: A point of order has been raised.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Douglas, Strath-cona) :: The point of order is not well taken.


William Antrobus Griesbach: There is not an organization, whether commercial, industrial, or agricultural, that has not a staff to lead and direct its operations. The leader

of the American Federation of Labour is a high-salaried man, and I was reading the other day that the leader of the Boilermakers' Union gets $15,000 a year. The Great War Veterans' Association has a staff that is almost as highly paid as a military staff; and the Manufacturers' Association has a staff which is also very well paid. There is not a body of men in the country, I repeat, that has not a highly paid staff of men carefully selected to direct its operations. If I were asked to say what items should be wiped out, I would leave the item of staff to the last. Because you can raise an army of men in six months, you can get officers in two years, and commanding officers in five years, but you cannot get a staff under twenty years. When the hon. gentleman, who does not know the strength of the staff in his district, proposes that that staff should be reduced because it is too numerous, I think we have a fair intimation of just what he does know, and we can properly appraise the advice which he proffers.


John Archibald Maharg: In reference to district 12, what do they pay for rent in connection with the staff in the city of Regina?


Hugh Guthrie: That question does not arise under this vote, but I shall furnish my hon. friend with the particulars on another occasion.


John Archibald Maharg: If I understood the member for Assiniboia rightly, he said that they lacked accommodation in Saskatchewan in connection with armouries or drill halls. We have an armoury in the city of Moose jaw which would be a credit to any place, being on a par with practically ^ny of the armouries that have been built; it cost over $100,000. If I am correctly informed, in Regina the minister is paying rent for all the space he occupies there. This splendid building in the city of Moosejaw is absolutely idle the year round, although a man has to be kept there to take care of it, and hundreds of tons of coal are consumed in the winter to keep the place heated and in condition. There is ample office accommodation and room for training there. There are five acres of land in connection with this institution, and floor space that will accommodate some 6,000 persons. Yet, the place stands absolutely idle from one year's end to the other, while the minister is paying right along for space in the other city where he has a staff.


Peter Francis Martin: Is there a permanent veterinary officer at Halifax?


Hugh Guthrie: I understand that we have no veterinary officer at Halifax now.


Peter Francis Martin: Is it intended to appoint one?


Hugh Guthrie: Not to appoint an additional one. It may be that some of the present staff may be moved, but I do not think it likely they would go to Halifax. I doubt if there are enough horses there to occupy their attention. You could get part-time men to attend to them for there are only some sixteen or twenty horses there.


Mr. COWAN:: I was quite interested
indeed in the remarks made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, particularly in that part of his speech where he said he spoke for the people of Saskatchewan. I do not know where he got his authority to speak, for instance, for the constituency of Regina. I am of the opinion that I was elected to represent those people, and that I am the person who is supposed to speak for them. More than that, I have not a committee of fifteen in the constituency of Regina to tell me what I am to do. The hon. gentleman seems to think that the people of Saskatchewan are opposed to the existence of a military body in Canada-that is the so-called militia such as is now being organized and which has always existed in the Dominion. Such an impression I have found to be entirely incorrect. I do know this, that quite recently it was suggested that Military District No. 12, which covers the entire province of! Saskatchewan, should be disbanded and merged with some other district, and I want to say to my hon. friend that at no time during the four years I have represented the constituency of Regina have I been appealed to as strongly as I have recently to try and induce the Government not to disband that district. The Minister of Militia will admit that I made as strong representations to him as possible not to do so. Our people by the dozen appealed to me. They met in bodies, and represented to me that it would be a very unpopular and very unwise thing to disband that district; they wished to continue the militia organization in the interest of the defence of Canada, knowing the advantage it was when the war broke out. When the war began-my hon. friend may not know it; probably he was just harvesting wheat and doing nothing else at that time; probably he has done nothing 177
else but harvest wheat since, I do not know -our people took a very active interest in military matters, and they have continued to do so from that day until now. They know the advantage of the militia system; they know that our men rallied immediately to the colours to support the militia we had there. They know more than that-they know that out there our farmers' sons enlisted until in some districts there was not a single farmer's son left to attend to the farm duties. I hope that in the district where my hon. friend comes from they had a similar spirit. I do not know that they had, but I do know that was the feeling in our part of the country. I know this further: that as a result of that our farmers to-day are desirous that in the constituency of Regina-and I can speak for no more, although I will admit that more than one-half of the correspondence I am attending to here comes from districts represented by the Farmers' party which seems very funny to me when the people are said to be so satisfied with the representatives; but I am not speaking for them and not attempting to-I do know that the people in the constituency that I represent, both in the urban and rural districts, think the militia organization should be continued, not for militaristic purposes, but for the purposes of defence as it existed before.
Now, the attitude taken by our farmer friends here seems very strange to me. We find the hon. member for Assiniboia evidently opposing anything in the way of military expenditure. Then the gentleman who is evidently leading that party to-day, the hon. member for Maple Creek (Mr. Maharg) lives, I believe, in Moosejaw, and as soon as he sees a chance to get the military organization up into Moosejaw, where it might be of some local advantage to him, he suggests to the minister that the organization be moved there. Now, I take this attitude as a citizen of Canada-that if any department can be managed more economically and better from any other city I am not going to press the claim of the city of Regina. But the general opinion is that the capital of a province is the proper place for such a headquarters to be, and I think investigation will prove that to be the case. It seems very strange to me that as soon as it comes to a question of the interest of the pants pockets of persons in the constituency where the hon. gentlemen of the Farmers' party live then they forget all about their principles.


John Archibald Maharg: I made no reference
whatever to the removal of the district



[Stage Direction]
headquarters, I merely drew attention to the fact that there was a $140,000 or $150,000 building now standing absolutely empty, that is quite suitable for the accommodation of the staff not only of the military district in question but of the entire Dominion as far as space is concerned. That building is standing absolutely idle while rent is being paid for quarters for this staff in the city which my hon. friend who has just taken his seat represents. I am not concerned with the moving of the -district at all, but I am concerned that a building of that character should stand idle while we as taxpayers are paying rent for property in other places. It is purely a matter of economy with me. Personally I am of opinion we might do away with several of the districts, and I would ask the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Peck) to give us the benefit of his opinion. I would ask him if he does not think that Military District No. 12, which is now located at Regina, could very well serve the purposes of the provinces on either side of it. We have the military district for the province of Alberta located at Calgary, up near the mountains, almost in the extreme west of that province. In the province of Manitoba, on the other side there is another military district. When military training was required the troops were brought down to Camp Hughes for that purpose. And yet there is a spacious building in the province of Saskatchewan roomy enough to accommodate the staffs of these other districts. It seems strange to me that we should have three military districts when one located at a central point, in the way I have explained, would be just as convenient for the three provinces concerned.
William Antrobus Griesbach: Are you of opinion that if all the troops in these provinces were trained at Camp Hughes the extra cost df moving those troops would be more than met by the saving affected by the combination of the districts?


John Archibald Maharg: I am not expressing an
opinion at all, I am asking for an opinion. I do not pretend to know anything about the subject except that the training of all the troops in the West was done at Camp Hughes.


William Antrobus Griesbach: During the war?


John Archibald Maharg: Yes.


William Antrobus Griesbach: We are not training for war now, it is a peace training we are providing for.


John Archibald Maharg: Where is the annua;
training being done?


William Antrobus Griesbach: At local headquarters and at camps. Calgary is the camp for Alberta, and the local headquarters in wherever the local unit is. The local units are training at local headquarters this year and not travelling at all.


Walter Davy Cowan: The remarks of the hon.
member for Maple Creek evidently indicate that, while the war was on, his thoughts were not on the struggle at all but on the conduct of his farm and the profits to be derived therefrom-nothing else. If he knew anything at all about the subject he would not have made the statement he did to-day, that our troops were trained at Camp Hughes. At the beginning of the war they did train there, but if he had taken any interest in the subject at all he would know that while the war was in progress a new district, known as Military District No. 12, was created, and that the troops in that district were trained in the exhibition camp in Regina. I know that because I was in the camp for more than two years. If the hon. gentleman was paying any attention to the conduct of the war, and especially to the preparations being made in his own province, he ought to know that; if he doesn't know it he ought not to talk about it at all.


John Archibald Maharg: I think the hon. member is wandering away from the subject by indulging in these personalities. It is just possible that I know as much about the war, and had as many anxious thoughts over it, as the hon. member who has just sat down. That was not my purpose in rising, for I would be the last one to bring in anything like that, but the hon. member must have his little personal flings. I am not taking second place to anyone so far as the war is concerned, and it would be as well for the hon. member to have his own skirts absolutely clean before he criticises the skirts of other people.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: The hon. member for Maple Creek did me the honour to direct a question to me with regard to the organization.


John Archibald Maharg: Correct.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I believe in the principle of de-centralization. I do not believe you could administer the whole militia force of Canada through the general staff any more than you could govern the provinces through this Parliament. The division in the Prairie Provinces does not necessarily follow along geographical lines, and taking

into consideration the number of militia regiments I think it would be most unwise to reduce the districts there. In that particular I may quote the opinion of oui greatest soldier, General Sir Arthur Currie, who, having gone very thoroughly intc this question, reached the conclusion that it would be impossible to reduce the military districts without great detriment to the force.


Mr. YIEN:: I think the eommitee is at sea in trying to find the exact truth. We have had expression of widely divergent opinions from the hon. member for Regina and the hon. member for Maple Creek. But there is a gentleman here who has a wide knowledge of Western Canada, and in particular of the riding of Moosejaw-I would like to hear the Minister of Immigration give us his views as to the exact truth in respect of this question.


Mr. CALDER:: Mr. Chairman, for some time there has been considerable discussion regarding the location of headquarters in Military District No. 12. The matter has been thoroughly discussed by the Militia Department and its officers, and" after very careful consideration of all the factors they reached the decision that military headquarters should be made in the city of Regina. So far as I am concerned, I abide by the decision of those gentlemen, and the minister apparently concurs in their conclusion. With reference to the other point mentioned by the member for Maple Creek, that is, the advisability of using one of these large armouries as offices for headquarters staff, I understand they were never built for that purpose, but solely for military drill, and very material alterations would be necessary to adapt them for office purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Permanent Force, $6,255,000.
Charles Gavan Power: Before this item carries
I should like to have obtained considerable information from the minister, but the time before six o'clock is too short. To bring the matter to a head, I move for the reduction of this Estimate by the sum of $2,000,000. In support of this reduction I argue as follows:	We are asking for
this large amount of $6,255,000 to maintain a Permanent Force, that is, a force of men who could all the year round be in uniform and be trained for warlike purposes. The force amounts in all to 3,800 men. The amount required to pay them at $1,75 per day-in contradistinction to the $1.10
177J
which the private soldier was paid during the war-would 'be $2,429,000.


William Antrobus Griesbach: What about the
officers ?


Charles Gavan Power: I am coming to them in
a moment. To board those soldiers would require something like $1,000,000, so that we would have to set apart about $3,500,000 for their pay and board. Now I come to the officers. We would have over $2,000,000 left to pay the officers. We have already paid nineteen generals and twenty-five or thirty colonels $265,000, and we are told that their duty consists in looking after this force. I fail to see why we should be called upon to pay an extra $2,000,000 to them. But, lest I be accused of preaching as a demagogue, I will give a further reason. Our Permanent Force of 3,800 men represents, roughly, one man for every mile of the boundary line which divides us from our neighbours to the south. The Minister of Militia the other evening stated that he had cut down his Estimates to the lowest possible figure consistent with safety. When I asked him what danger he anticipated, he was unable to tell me. I am forced to conclude that the only danger he sees is the danger of aggression from our neighbour to the south. If he thinks 3,800 men are sufficient to defend us from that quarter, any soldier in the House will tell him that one man per mile is not sufficient. If this force is for training purposes-and I presume this is its principal purpose-I submit that we do not need to train soldiers at the present moment, for we have 400,000 of the best soldiers in the world that only two years ago returned from fighting in the greatest of all wars. They have learned how to fight on the bitterest of all fields, and they have become efficient enough to earn encomiums from the nations of the world. I do not say that as time goes on and these men disappear we will not have to replace them, and that we will not have to go in for further military training, but I submit that at the present moment, when we have no enemy either near or far to face, when, even if we had, we have a stronger and better disciplined and more efficient fighting organization in our returned men than we have ever in our history, when this organization can be called together in a matter of weeks to face any foe,-there is no necessity to incur this heavy military expenditure.


William Cameron Edwards: Why does my hon. friend limit his cut to two millions? Why

does he not move that the whole item be eliminated?


Charles Gavan Power: I limited the reduction to two millions because it was supposed to be necessary to have the skeleton of an army in case of any sudden uprising.


William Cameron Edwards: My hon. friend is
arguing that there is no such necessity.


Charles Gavan Power: I argue that for the present there is no great necessity; if my hon. friend will bqck me up, of course, I will move to cut out the whole thing. If I cannot get his consent to that I would ask him to go with me a little way in that direction.


William Cameron Edwards: I feel very highly flattered to think that my hon. friend's judgment on military matters should be so influenced.


Charles Gavan Power: My judgment in all matters in connection with parliamentary affairs is influenced a great deal by the way my hon. friend expresses himself and the way he votes. Ever, since I came into this House I have followed his speeches and his views and his votes with considerable attention and have governed myself accordingly. For a number of years I have been endeavouring to obtain better treatment for the widowed mothers of soldiers. I am told that approximately $2,000,000 a year would well look after this class of our people who suffered through the war. I prefer that this $2,000,000 should be spent in this way rather than to train people to begin another war. My view is that before we embark on any further warlike or belligerent undertakings we should pay our debts to those who suffered as a result of the last war. Let us see that the widows and orphans of those who laid down their lives obtain something which shall prevent them from having to scrape in order to earn a living. If hon. gentlemen opposite do not wish to spend this money, through pensions and re-establishment, for the benefit of the widows and orphans, it could be devoted to the relief of the distress caused by unemployment and to look after the returned soldiers who so gallantly fought in the great war. If we did this we would alleviate in some degree the unrest and the bitter feeling which prevails among the returned men who since coming back to Canada have felt that promises made to them during the war were made only to be broken. I move, Mr. Chairman, that this item be reduced by $2,000,000.


Hugh Guthrie: This item is reduced by a quarter of a million from the amount voted last year. It provides now for 4,000 rank and file and 412 officers, at ah average of $1,350 each. My hon. friend's calculation is very wide of the mark. He has taken the basis of the pay of a private soldier only as a first-year man. He has allowed nothing for non-commissioned officers, nothing for the 950 horses we have to maintain, nothing for thirty or forty other items which he has not mentioned. We have already cut this item to the bone. In fact, unless there are some desertions during the summer, we may be just a little short. But in the hot weather there are always a certain number of desertions, and allowing for these the item will suffice, I trust, for the present fiscal year.


Mr. DAVIS:: Where and in what numbers are the men of the Permanent Force now stationed?


Hugh Guthrie: The following is a list of the military districts with the number of men at each: No. 1, London, 261; No. 2, Toronto, 580; No. 3, Kingston, 435; No. 4, Montreal, 321; No. 5, Quebec, 463; No. 6, Halifax, 664; No. 7, St. John, 82; No. 10, Winnipeg, 512; No. 11, Victoria, 409; No. 12, Regina, 63; No. 13, Calgary, 210.
Amendment (Mr. Power) negatived; yeas, 37, nays, 60.


Mr. CAHILL:: Is it the intention of the Government to reduce the number of the mounted police? We were told last year that either one or the other system would be adopted, that of the mounted police or that of the standing militia, as a Permanent Force for Canada. Is the Mounted Police Force to be continued or reduced, and is the militia to be continued and increased?


James Alexander Calder: Provision was made a
year ago for an establishment of some 2,500 members in the Mounted Police force. As a matter of fact, if I am not mistaken, we have not exceeded 1,800. The Main Estimates this year will provide for in the neighbourhood of about 1,600 men to be retained in the Mounted Police, and it is proposed to carry that force for at least this year.


Frank S. Cahill: We were told by the Government last year, in passing the Main Estimates for the Mounted Police, that they had not determined whether they would retain a Mounted Police force sufficient to replace the militia, or whether they would

adopt the policy of maintaining the militia and reducing the Mounted Police. Has any conclusion been come to by the Government as to which of these two forces they are going to perpetuate and to increase and which they are to decrease.


James Alexander Calder: The services are different. It has been decided that for this year we shall maintain the Mounted Police force in Eastern and Western Canada with an establishment of about 1,600 men. The question whether the Mounted Police force is to continue indefinitely has not been determined.


Mr. CANNON:: Have the Government received from provincial governments protests as to the establishment of this Mounted Police force and their activities in the several provinces of Canada? If so, from what provinces have protests been received?


Hugh Guthrie: That question is hardly in order on these Estimates.


The CHAIRMAN:: I must point out to the committee that it would be out of order to go into any lengthy discussion of the Estimates of the Mounted Police on the Militia Estimates. The Mounted Police, as every one well knows, are under the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Calder). When his Estimates are before the committee, these questions will, of course, be quite in order.


Lucien Cannon: I do not wish to start a discussion which would be out of order.' I would not have put my question to the Minister of Militia; but when I saw his colleague, the President of the Council, taking part in the debate, I thought the question which I put was in order on account of his having intervened. So long as the Minister of Militia will conduct the discussion, I will not press my question; but if the President of the Council wishes to take part in the discussion, I think my question is perfectly in order.
At Six o'clock, the committee rose and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at Eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 85 (from the Senate), for the relief of Duncan MacDonald Oxley.-Mr. Glass.
Bill No. 86 (from the Senate), for the relief of Rose Winifred Smith.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 87 (from the Senate), for the relief of Evelyn Campbell.-Mr. Best.
Bill No. 88 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Thorne Acton.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 89 (from the Senate), for the relief of Lillian Florence Ansell.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona).
Bill No. 90 (from the Senate), for the relief of Ellen Greenwood.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 91 (from the Senate), for the relief of Edna Garnet Rabb.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 92 (from the Senate), for the relief of Gertrude Gladys Vernon.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 93 (from the Senate), for the relief of Stella Anna Jackson.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 94 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mabel Marshall..-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 95 (from the Senate), for the relief of Margaret Marie Cook.-Mr. Clarke (Wellington).
Bill No. 96 (from the Senate), for the relief of Jean Grey Holt.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 97 (from the Senate), for the relief of Harry Tolhurst.-Mr. Smith.
Bill No. 98 (from the Senate), for the relief of Rosetta Hood.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 99 (from the Senate), for the relief of Albert Edwin Gordon.-Mr. McQuarrie.
Bill No. 100 (from the Senate), for the relief of Willie Hopkinson.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 101 (from the Senate), for the relief of Mamie McKillop.-Mr. Currie.
Bill No. 102 (from the Senate), for the relief of Frederick Robert Studholme.-Mr. Blair.
Bill No. 103 (from the Senate), for the relief of Beatrice Osborne.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 104 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Verner MeAree.

Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 53, to incorporate The Fort Smith Railway Company.-Mr. Douglas (Strathcona),

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 108 (from the Senate), respecting the Dominion Express Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill No. 109 (from the Senate), for the relief of John Edward Kelley.;-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 110 (from the Senate), for the relief of Annie Belle Westbeare.-Mr. Boys.
Bill No. Ill (from the Senate), for the relief of Christina Wilson Stephens.-Mr. Mowat.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 112 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alice Andrews.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 113 (from the Senate), for the relief of Esther Annie Vanzant.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 114 (from the Senate), for the relief of Werden Grant Parker.-Mr. Mowat.
Bill No. 115 (from the Senate), for the relief of James Edward Nixon.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 120 (from the Senate), for the relief of Alphonse LeMoyne de Martigny. -Mr. Ross.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Mr. Fripp the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 14 to amend an Act to incorporate Gilmour and Hugh-son, Limited, were read the first and second time and concurred in.

Arthur Meighen: Before the House resumes in Committee of Supply, Mr. Speaker,-this is not a motion-I desire, with your permission, to say, in regard to the question put by the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) this afternoon, as to what hours will he observed commencing Monday, that the Government is of opinion that we should observe the practice of last session and conform to city time, so that there may be no confusion.

The House again in Committee of Supply, Mr. Boivin in the Chair.


Georges Henri Boivin: When the Committee rose at 6 o'clock the Estimates of Militia and Defence were under consideration. The committee had reached item No. 102 on page 30 of the Estimates. This item -had been considered and an amendment had been moved and disposed of. Shall the item now carry?


Frank S. Cahill: At six o'clock I was addressing a question to the Government regarding the strength of the Permanent Force, and I desire now to quote briefly from certain remarks made by the minister in charge of the Mounted Police Estimates last year, in which he discussed military items. He said:
With reference to the future of the force, here is the question with which we are faced. It is essential to maintain a police force for certain purposes. It is essential to maintain it for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is necessary to have a federal police for certain im-
(Mr. Cannon.]
portant purposes that the federal police have served during all these years. In addition we must have some force as a reserve for the main-tainence of law and order. We can choose between having a permanent military force of a certain strength which the Government might consider adequate to our needs in Canada, or of preserving this force at a substantial strength. I do not think any member of the House will say that we should have no force in Canada. We must have some force. The question is whether it is wiser to have a military force of a greater strength or to have a smaller . military force and keep up the Mounted Hoi ice for the purposes of a reserve force, as well as for performing the necessary police duties.
My own personal view is that it is better to have a larger Mounted Police Force and a smaller military force than we otherwise would require. Hon. members may not agree with that but that is my view and that is the view that the Government has acted upon. Another Government might reach a different conclusion. It might consider it desirable to make this force a part of the Permanent Military Force. We did at one time discuss that proposal but we came to the conclusion that the Mounted Police is a better force for preserving law and order than either the militia or the Permanent Force.
Now, I wish to ask the Government whether they have come to any conclusion with regard to the references made to .the different forces by the minister who had charge of the Mounted Police Estimates last year-whether the military force is to he increased by a strength that would be deemed sufficient and the Mounted Police Force eliminated or reduced, or whether it is the intention to maintain the two forces more or less independently of each other rather than amalgamate them, as was suggested by the minister last year?


Hugh Guthrie: I may say in answer
to the question that there are two opinions upon that subject. I know the opinion of Sir Arthur Currie, when Inspector-General of the Forces of Canada, was that there should be but one department of defence in this country, and that it should embrace not only the military but also the Naval, Air and Mounted Police Force. His opinion was that the whole of our defence scheme should be under one department. However, another opinion is prevalent upon that question. That is that we require a force in Canada more particularly detailed for police work than is the lot of any military force that I know of in this country or in any other country-that is such work as has been done for a great many years by the mounted police of our northwestern country. That is essentially police work-the maintenance of law and order being one branch of the force, the ferreting out and discovery of crime being another branch of it and the general administra-

tion of criminal law which is largely entrusted in our western provinces to that organization. However, in the results this arrangement has been reached-that instead of increasing our military force we have determined to keep it down to less than half the amount authorized, and at the same time our proposal is to decrease the Mounted Police Force. As the minister stated this afternoon the force last year was approximately 1,800 men. This year he proposes to reduce it to 1,600 men, with a corresponding reduction of about a million dollars in expenditure. It is felt that at present we had better proceed on the old lines, keeping the police as a civil force distinct from the military force. Of course, I do not know what the ultimate result may be in the years to come, but personally I was very much influenced by the opinion of Sir Arthur Currie upon the subject. So far as I can speak at the present time, the determination of the Government is to maintain the two forces but at largely reduced strength to that authorized.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister does not
state definitely that any policy has been arrived at?


Hugh Guthrie: The policy is the one
that I have stated-to maintain them as distinct forces at greatly reduced numbers.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it intended to construct
any new barracks this year?


Hugh Guthrie: We are badly in need
of barracks, Mr. Chairman, but we do not feel that we would be warranted in incurring the expenditure at the present time. We are also badly in need of drill accommodation for some of the militia units, but that matter will have to stand to a future date.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Royal Mounted
Police used to be stationed at Ottawa, are they here still?


Hugh Guthrie: Personally, I do not
really know. There are Mounted Police here, but I am not familiar with their numbers.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are there detachments of the Royal Mounted Police stationed elsewhere than in Ottawa?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, at several points, but I am not really familiar with them. I know there are police at Winnipeg, Vancouver, Regina, and I think possibly at Edmonton also. There are 1,600 scattered at various points.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What work do they
do in Ottawa?


Hugh Guthrie: I am not very familiar with the answer to that question. I know they do guard the public buildings, they have taken the place of the old Dominion police, but I am really not well enough informed on the matter to say.


Georges Henri Boivin: As I ruled before
six o'clock, I think any discussion on the Royal Northwest Mounted Police, or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as the body is now called, would be more properly in order on the Estimates of the minister in charge of that body, that is the hon. the President of the Privy Council.
Mr. D'ANJOU (Rimouski) :	(Translation.) Mr. Chairman, I wish to register my protest, as I have always done year after year, against military expenditures, before the passing of this item by the parliamentary majority. In fact, the necessity has never been so urgent in this country of ours as at the present time to practise the strictest economy in every way possible.
Our military expenses, during the last war, ran up to a very high figure, and, as it has often been said, that war was fought in order to prevent further conflicts. Then we have the League of Nations which was established with a view to settling disputes between the various countries of the world. This league is costing us quite a lot of money and I think the time has come when the Government should realize that our military expenditure must necessarily be cut down to the lowest possible figure. It is the duty of the Government to devote their efforts to peaceful undertakings, instead of voting money for armouries and military drill halls. They should rather attend to the building of agricultural schools and experimental farms and the establishment of demonstration plots. I, for one, would be ready to support any appropriation to that effect, but I do object to any superfluous military expenditure.
In the course of the debate, last night, the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. McCurdy) asked for a vote of $25,000 to build a drill hall in the Maritime Provinces. We objected to that item and I believe we acted in the public interest. When hon. members ask the. Government to vote some money for agricultural or other very useful purposes, they are told that the financial condition, of the country does not justify such expenditure. This year the

Estimates of the Department of Agriculture amount to $4,000,000 only, while we are asked to vote nearly $12,000,000 for the Militia Department. If the Government realized their duty and should the Minister of militia be not quite so militaristic, it would be the very opposite and instead of voting twelve millions for military purposes, that money would be applied to agriculture.
At the present time there are more drill halls than agricultural schools or experimental farms in this country. I understand that the Government, such as it was asked by the Minister of Public Works yesterday may build drill halls in the constituencies whose representatives are supporters of the Administration; I understand that, on the eve of an election, a sum of $25,000 may be asked for military purposes, in order to help an hon. member who is now supporting the Government; but, in my opinion, such expenditure is absolutely unnecessary and unjustified. In view of our present financial troubles and the unrest which is prevailing throughout the country, the Government ought to cut down considerably the military expenditure and that would help us to meet the enormous obligations which we have assumed by taking part in the war. It is not soldiers that we want, but tillers of the soil. That ought to be the aim of the Government. It would be better if they endeavoured to impress upon our young men a disposition for agriculture, to better the condition of the farmer and to make life easier and more pleasant for him. That would be a much better way to help in the development of this country and in paying the enormous debt we have incurred through our foolish and hazardous experience during the last war.
No wonder that the country is facing bankruptcy. Did not Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Meighen) state, at the outbreak of the war, that he was ready" to lead the country into bankruptcy in order that we might take part in the war? His wishes have been heard and, to-day this Dominion whose Government he is now leading, is absolutely bankrupt.
Mr. Chairman, as soon as hon. members on this side get up and criticise the military and naval Estimates, they are charged by the majority of hon. members opposite with being disloyal. It has even suggested, during the present review, that hon. members who refused to give their whole support to the Minister of Marine or the Minister of Militia,

when they present their Estimates, lacked intelligence. Well, Mr. Chairman, I consider that the most intelligent members are those who realize best the interests of the country and who want this Dominion to resume its course towards its destinies.
I am absolutely opposed to this military expenditure and I said so at the last review. It is my opinion and I am here to voice my views and those of the people I have the honour to represent. I wanted very much to make these observations before the hon. minister had. the item passed by the majority surrounding him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Royal Military College, $350,000.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: How does the attendance at the college this year compare with that of other years?


Hugh Guthrie: The work of the Royal Military College on its military and on its civil side is gradually extending. The number of candidates in attendance during the college year just closing is one hundred and sixty-three. One hundred and two tried the examination last year. Sixty-one were successful, and of these seven did not take the college course.


Pius Michaud: What is the reason for the increase in this item over last year?


Hugh Guthrie: It is largely attributable to increases granted to the civilian staff by the Civil Service Commission, who classified them and fixed their salaries. I have the particulars, but it is a very long list.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What education besides the military is given?


Hugh Guthrie: A broad general education equal to the education that one receives in many of our universities. It is accepted by the various law and medical schools up to matriculation. Special courses are given in engineering and military subjects, but the ordinary classical, mathematical and English as well as French education is provided for.


Mr. EULER:: Are all the students obliged to take some portion of military training even if they specialize in particular subjects?


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, yes, there is an
elaborate system of what I suppose I might call military gymnastics as part of the students' daily life.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do the students get practice in gunnery.	-


Hugh Guthrie: They have special exercises in gunnery, hut the actual firing practice is taken at Petawawa Camp.


Mr. CHISHOLM:: What entrance examination is required?


Hugh Guthrie: In Ontario we would say it is considerably higher than the entrance examination to our high schools.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the attendance from the various provinces?


Hugh Guthrie: A few students come
from Montreal, but the attendance is largely made up from Ontario and the West, although the college is open to every part of Canada.


William Daum Euler: Is there any attempt to make the institution self-sustaining, and to what extent is it not so?


Hugh Guthrie: These are the fees payable by the cadets:	First year, $400;
second year, $250; third year, $250; total, $900. That includes all fees, board, etc.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do the students attending that college get a practical training in engineering, civil and electrical, corresponding with that given in a school of technology?	.


Hugh Guthrie: A very elaborate course is given in civil engineering; there is also a course in electrical engineering. These are purely civilian courses, though they are considered as of the highest significance in connection with military training.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Are steps taken by the department or by the college itself to advertise the institution and bring it to the notice of the young men of the country?


Hugh Guthrie: We did advertise it very generally throughout Canada, but just at present we have withdrawn all the advertisements because we have as many cadets as we can accommodate. I did hear that the number of applicants for the next term, commencing next fall, has not reached the maximum, and some advertising may be done during this summer. The local governments are specially notified of vacancies, of the requirements, and of the curriculum, and are urged to send their full complement of students.


William Daum Euler: Is the primary purpose of the college to prepare men for officers' commissions in the Permanent Force of Canada?


Hugh Guthrie: No, that is not the
object. The college was established by Hon. Alexander MacKenzie in 1874. It had a double purpose, a broad civil training and also a thorough military training. But practically no inducement is offered to cadets who pass examinations there to enter the service. I think only five commissions are offered to cadets. In former years two Imperial commissions were offered; I do not know whether that practice has been continued since the war. Just at this time the Permanent Force establishment is complete and we are not able to offer any military commissions at all.


William Daum Euler: Am I right in assuming that this item of $350,000 is what is required over and above the revenue derived from tuition fees?


Hugh Guthrie: The vote now asked is the total cost of the institution. Anything received from the students is paid directly to the Receiver General.


William Daum Euler: Could the minister give
the committee an idea how much the college is costing?


Hugh Guthrie: The total expenditure
for last year was $219,160 and the revenue was $53,598. The net expenditure chargeable to the public would be $165,561.74.


William Cameron Edwards: As the Royal Military College is situated in a corner of my constituency, I have naturally taken considerable interest in it, before, as well as since, I became a member of this House. Although the institution is in the county of Frontenac I do not claim it as belonging to my constituency, because in an especial sense it belongs to the whole Canadian people. I can remember, Sir, when I first entered this House and sat in Opposition, that I was impressed with the manner in which members on -both sides regarded the Royal Military College-as an institution belonging as much to the whole of the people as to the part of the country in which it happened to be situated. Members at all times have been disposed not only to take a justifiable pride in the Royal Military College, but to deal very generously with it. I need not recite the fame that has come to the college through the work done by its graduates, not only on the field of battle, where they have won undying fame for themselves, their college and their country, but in other walks of life; they have brought to the college and to the Dominion in various parts of the

world well deserved honour. The college has been particularly fortunate in the gentlemen who have from time to time occupied the position of commandant, but at no time in its history, I believe, has it been more fortunate in that respect than at the present time under the direction of General Sir Archibald Macdonnell. I need not refer to his distinguished military career; others here are more capable of doing that than I am. But I have had the privilege and the pleasure of associating more or less intimately with him, and I know that he maintains that close touch with the students which is essential to the best results in any university or college.' One cannot put a value upon close personal relationship between a man like General Sir Archibald Macdonnell and the cadets who are attending that school. The commandant also takes a very close personal interest in the advancement of the school. It is the West Point of Canada, and he has looked upon it almost as something belonging to himself. He is deeply interested in making things look presentable so that people from the United States or elsewhere who inspect the institution will be favourably impressed with our Royal Military College. In that regard I just want to throw out this hint to the Minister of Militia (Mr. Guthrie) and his colleague the Minister of Justice. The commandant wants to improve the surrpundings of the college, and, in my estimation, that could be done at a minimum of expense, if there was co-operation between the Department of Justice and the Militia Department in this respect. Just across the water, a very short distance from the Royal Military College, is that institution known also to fame, although to a different kind of fame, Portsmouth penitentiary, in which there are a number of convicts in need of exercise. At present, they obtain that exercise, in a way of doubtful benefit to many of them, by simply breaking stones. The operation of breaking stones may be made one of general public advantage if a number of these convicts from the penitentiary could be put into a launch, brought down with their guards to the Royal Military College and set to work there on the scheme which General Sir Archibald Macdonnell has in mind of building a driveway right along the lake-front so as to add very much to the general appearance of the grounds around the military college. This, it seems to me, could be done with advantage to the public and with no expense at all. Those convicts might better be employed in work

of that kind building a nice driveway around that college to beautify the grounds., than, in a shed cracking limestone from day-to-day and week-end to week-end without any return or anything to stimulate their minds or to do them any good. That is something which I have hinted at before, and which, it seems to me, might be carried out to the advantage of the institution.
I am glad to see the Government has undertaken the erection of buildings-and those buildings are now in course of erection-which will give to the college more accommodation for class-rooms than it has had in the past. I have had some little experience with college work, I mean in going through college, and I can appreciate, as I am sure every hon. member in this chamber can, who has ever attended school, what a handicap it has been to this institution in years past to have these students packed into a place not one-quarter as large as it should be. The number of cadets allowed to enter the college is limited. It is a case of first come, first served. Those who get their applications in first, will be most likely to have an opportunity of attending the college.


William Antrobus Griesbach: They have to pass an examination.


William Cameron Edwards: Yes. I hope to see the day when this institution will be enlarged as our means increase, as I hope they will, so that more young men can avail themselves of the splendid training that is given there. If I had a dozen sons-and I wish to goodness I had-I would certainly, if I possibly could, rake and scrape together the money to send every one of those boys for, at least, one year to the Royal Military College, if not for anything other than to get the physical training at the institution. The instruction those young men get along that line is simply marvellous. It is wonderful what they can do in that institution with a young man in the way of systematic physical training. The students have been drawn, as the mnister has stated, from all parts of the country. Some very distinguished graduates have come from Quebec. More,
9. p.m. I suppose, naturally, have come from Ontario. I do not know that the institution has received as many as it should have from the provinces down by the sea. I hope, in years to come, it will receive more students from other parts of our Dominion. I would urge upon hon. gentlemen that, if they have a week-end to spare, they visit Kingston and make a

call at the Royal Military College. I can assure them that the commandant will be delighted to have them visit the institution and that he will show them around with the very greatest of pleasure. I am sure that if they can spend a week-end in that way, they will come back feeling that the time has not been wasted.


William Daum Euler: I think I may say that I shall be one of the last to criticise any expenditure for purposes of education, and I am glad to be assured, as I have known in the past, that the Royal Military College at Kingston is a most efficient institution. I do not doubt that at all. I will say, however, that I have always been under the impression, as I think many other people have, that the purpose of the Royal Military College is more in the nature of preparing young men to enter the military service of Canada. Personally, I am rather surprised to find that- only a very small number, some five or six, are actually offered an opportunity of entering the military service, and that the greater proportion of the instruction offered and the courses presented there are for general purposes of education. I note, from what the minister has said, that it costs the country for the conduct of this college something in excess of $150,000. I am not complaining about that expenditure; but I think, under the Constitution of Canada, the British North America Act, the matter of general education is something for the provinces to deal with, and I am curious to know in what way it has come about that the Dominion of Canada is entering upon the matter of general education.


Hugh Guthrie: We entered upon it many years ago.


William Daum Euler: I am trying to get the explanation.


Hugh Guthrie: The explanation is that it was in connection with the military system in Canada, and that was its justification. But we have broken the strict letter of our constitution in many ways in regard to education. We spend money for agricultural education, for technical education, for naval education. It is not correct to say that all education is, by our Constitutional Act, given to the provinces.


William Daum Euler: Have we any technical
schools?


Hugh Guthrie: We spend money on
technical education.


William Daum Euler: We have no technical
schools. I wish we had.


Hugh Guthrie: I think one would call the Royal Military College at Kingston a technical school in every sense of the word.
I remember arguing in this House in the early days when I brought up the first technical education proposition, that that was a good instance of a technical school.
I also argued at that time, that is fifteen or eighteen years ago now, that we spend money on educational lines which, under the strict letter of the Constitution, we should, perhaps, not do, but we have done it from Confederation down to the present time. This school was established as long ago as 1874. Our authority to establish it, or our right to carry it on, has never been seriously questioned.


William Antrobus Griesbach: To clear up a misconception in my hon. friend's mind, I may say that the education given is primarily' a military education. A military education is primarily based upon a sound general education. When the minister referred to the fact that five commissions were given, he meant to say, and I think he did say, that they were given in the Permanent Force. Every graduate of the Military College is required to serve three years in the Canadian Militia after graduation, and as a matter of fact nearly all graduates of the Military College serve in the active militia of Canada. Furthermore, all the graduates, with the exception of one or two who were physically incapacitated, served in the great war. They are required to serve in the active militia by the terms of their original engagement on joining the college.


Charles Murphy: Let me suggest to the minister three reasons which I have not heard mentioned, any one of which ought to be sufficient to pass any item relating to the Royal Military College at Kingston.
In the first place, it was established by a Liberal Government, the Government of the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie. In the second place, the education received at the Royal Military College has resulted in the turning out of most of the engineers under whom the great public works of Canada have been constructed. In the third place,, the Royal Military College at the present time is under the command of Sir Archibald Macdonnell, than whom there is no more accomplished soldier or thorough gentleman on the face of the earth today. These are three reasons which operate to mitigate my objection to militarism in any manner, shape or form and incline

me to view with favour the passing of any item relating to the Royal Military College. I just wanted to offer these observations and to corroborate all that my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) has said about the present commandant, with whose friendship I have had the privilege of being honoured since we both played football together, now many years ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Topographic Survey, $45,000.
Cyrus Wesley Peck: Does this include mapping?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Cyrus Wesley Peck: I think that next year there should be some increase in this item. We are a hundred years behind other countries now in our mapping, and I think the service should be enlarged.


Hugh Guthrie: I quite agree, and I am doing the best I can to maintain this vote. All I was able to get this year was $45,000, the same as last year. I realize that the work is proceeding slowly, but I realize more, and I am advised by men most competent to advise me on the subject, that one of the most important branches of military education is mapping, and not only the making of maps but map reading.	[DOT]


Cyrus Wesley Peck: Are the maps that are made based on the Geodetic Survey?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Mr. CURRIE:: I want to say a word in connection with the Topographic Survey.
I commend it very highly. As to the Geodetic Survey that started a few years ago, about 1908, with a very small item, something like $8,000. Last year the item was $300,000. The members of this House have received a pamphlet describing the "net" system of work of the Geodetic Survey in the province of Ontario. This system adopted by the Geodetic Survey is of no earthly value for general survey purposes. If hon. gentlemen will inquire how the geodetic survey of India was made, they will, find that the method followed was altogether different from that adopted here. This method in Canada of making a number of long triangulations called a "net" and all that sort of thing, is the worst system that could be adopted. In India they do their work by triangles formed along base lines. The head of the Geodetic Survey in Canada says that it is going to take 200 years to make the survey the way they are doing. I would suggest

that they change the method and get the work done in a few years. The Militia Ordnance Survey is operating on altogether different lines. There is no finer work done in any country, so far as topographic surveying is concerned, than by our Department of Militia, and they have been scamped for money. Half the boys have been working for nothing to get the work done. We are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on the useless work of a geodetic survey and I think it is time the Department of Militia got more money so that they could complete a topographic survey at least of the provinces that lie along the border. In British Columbia they are carrying on a topographic survey in connection with the Dominion Mines Department, and their work is far in advance of the work in any other country. They are doing it by means of the camera. The specimens of their work that have been published by the Department of Mines are quite equal to anything done by the Mines Department in the United States. I just wanted to call the attention of the House to that wasteful item of $300,000 for puting a few pyramids here and there and triangulating for miles across without any apparent start, or any apparent finish, or any real object. Any one who wants to learn about the geodetic survey work done in the British Empire can see a fine example of it in India. In Canada those who are doing this work do not understand anything at all about it, and yet we are spending such a vast sum of money on something of no value. My hon. friend from Halifax (Mr. Maclean) remembers very well when he and I spoke in 1909 in favour of a geodetic survey.
I never dreamt then that we were going to spend years putting a net work of triangulation across the country from Ottawa that is not of any use. If anybody wants to get an idea of geodetic survey work, and how it should be done, he can find out in ten minutes by consulting the Encyelopaadia Britannica under "surveying," and he will find out from reading that article and then reading the report describing the work done by the Geodetic Survey in Canada, that the work done here is of no earthly use to us, and is not in accordance with any system in the world except that of the United States, where they have not learned to do this work yet. We are always trailing after them, and then finding out in the end that we have not attained any objective.

I am satisfied that this militia item for the Topographic Survey should be passed and that more money should be spent on it next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport and freight, $200,000.
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is there any money at the disposal of the Militia Department to look after the fag ends in connection with military matters that have to toe adjusted?


Hugh Guthrie: If they strictly pertain to the war, there is. We have an allowance in the proposed demobilization vote. Almost every week some fag end turns up. Only to-day I think my hon. friend the leader of the Opposition brought one to my attention. There was another case on Monday brought to my attention by. my hon. friend from Stratheona (Mr. Douglas). Some men in Nova Scotia who wanted to get to the West, and should have gone to the West, had overstayed their time. A number of cases of that kind are continually cropping up, which we have to charge to demobilization.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have a case in mind which might very well be called a fag end. It is the case of a man who was employed by the Military Service Branch at Halifax to go out into the country and trace up men who did not report. They gave him seven or eight warrants, and told him where to find the men. Some of them he found, and some of them he did not. Some, when they discovered that he was after them, went and reported themselves. The warrants were sent to this man with an absurd instruction to go and hunt for the men; if he found them, and was able to bring them to headquarters, he would get something, but if he did not find them and bring them to headquarters he would not get anything. He was an enthusiastic chap and started out on his search. He spent some weeks driving around the country with his own horse, paying his. own board, and spending a lot of time searching for these men. He sent in his return, and he was never paid one cent. It is a most extraordinary thing that this man should be put to the expense and trouble of going around the country searching for these men, and paying all his expenses, and then never get a cent at the end. His return was sent in to the department, and why he has never been settled with, I cannot understand.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I know the case to which my hon. friend has reference.
Strange as it may seem, I happened to be looking into it this morning. It is not a case which comes within the jurisdiction of the Militia Department. My hon. friend knows that the administration of the Military Service Act was under a committee in the Justice Department, and instructions were sent to this man in question from the Justice Department. He received the instructions from them and acted under their orders. My hon. friend has communicated with the Department of Militia on this subject, and in due course the papers came before me. I find that the instruc-tipns to the officer contained this clause, that if the man after whom he was sent proved on apprehension to be a defaulter, the constable or official would be paid his reasonable fees and expenses. If the man on apprehension prpved not to be a defaulter he would have received no allowance. Many of the men who were apprehended by this particular officer were r.ot defaulters, they were not liable under the Military Service Act. But the officer performed the service notwithstanding, and I think myself it is very unreasonable to deprive him of his reasonable fees and expenses. He performed the work'he was sent to perform by the Department of Justice, not by the Department of Militia. However, it is just a question from what fund the money should be paid. It does not relate to demobilization and my own opinion was we should ask for a Supplementary Estimate to pay the account. I was going to recommend it anyway, because I think it is a claim that ought to be paid.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I know this man very well. He is the deputy sheriff for the county of Victoria-


Hugh Guthrie: That is the man.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: -and a very enthusiastic officer. He is not a young man by any means; he is about sixty years of age. He worked hard to find those men and it is extraordinary that he should not have been paid.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Warlike stores, $197,054.
Mr. SINCLAIR (Guysborough) :: I would like the minister to give an explanation of what these warlike stores are?


Hugh Guthrie: The pre-war vote for warlike stores was a very large one. In 1913-14 it was $703,375. Last year we asked for $400,000, and this year we are asking only $197,054 a reduction of $203,-

000. The whole purpose of the vote is for artillery stores, engineers' stores, medical stores, general stores, up-keep and any new services that may be established.


John Howard Sinclair: What are these stores?


Hugh Guthrie: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Public Works; Public buildings, New Brunswick, $86,500.
Mr. LEGER:: Of this item I notice that $83,500 is for the city of St. John, leaving only $3,000 for the remainder of the province. I would like the minister to give some explanation of this vote.


Hon. F. B. McCURDY (Minister of Public Works):: I am sure my hon. friend will appreciate the position in which the department finds itself this year. As I explained to the committee on the occasion of the nocturnal sitting, the only items which are being voted this year are items of an unavoidable character. It happens that in the province of New Brunswick the buildings which demand attention this year are situated at large centres. Of the vote in question, $75,000 is required for one particular item in connection with the quarantine service. I am advised that the quarantine service requires these expenditures in the most urgent way. If the request had not been of the greatest urgency I would have hesitated to bring the Estimate before the committee.


Auguste Théophile Léger: This item of $75,000 for new buildings, repairs and improvements at the Partridge island quarantine station is a revote. As the money was not expended last year, I do not see any reason why it should be expended this year, and it would seem to me that the item is kept in the Estimates for a certain purpose-

so that at any time the money can be expended, if necessary, on certain interests. Therefore I would like to see it struck off this year.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: A part of this vote is already in the way of being expended. It will be no surprise to my hon. friend to know that the requests which have come in from the Immigration quarantine service are largely in excess of this vote, which is of a general character. The request that comes from the Department of Health for expenditures on quarantine service at St. John is under the following heads: Disinfector and power plant building- $ 76,000
New third class detention building. .	. .	100,000
Addition to existing third class building	 20,388
New wharf for low tide accommodation
two pairs semi-detached	houses..	..	30,000
New ice house	 1,200
Fencing	 1,400
Electric lighting system	 15,000
General alterations, repairs and furniture	 16,573


John Howard Sinclair: Is that all in connection with the quarantine station?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, on Partridge
island, St. John. I can assure the Committee that if the vote of $75,000 towards this request for $260,000 is given the service will be able to take care of the immigration demands which will be made on the organization during the year.


John Howard Sinclair: The
fact that the people of St. John are asking for this expenditure is no reason why the committee should vote the money. Although they are modest about their requests for expenditure, they are always ready to take public money when they can get it. My hon. friend says that part of this $75,000 has already been spent. He must be mistaken, because according to the Estimates the whole of this sum is a revote. What is the explanation as to the necessity of this expenditure, and as to part of the money having already been spent?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: 
Auguste Théophile Léger: If we were in normal times I would not object to this vote, but I understand that the quarantine station on
Partridge island is in very fair condition, and as immigration is slackening I cannot understand why these large amounts are necessary at the present time, especially when applications for public buildings throughout the province of New Brunswick have been made to the department without result. Post office accommodation is needed in the city of Moncton, but there is no provision for it in the Estimates. Then again, many of our public buildings are in fogent need of repairs. Right in my own county there is a public building badly in need of external repairs, but I have not been successful in getting the department to attend to the matter. The building is in the middle of a two-acre plot and only the front of it has been painted; in fact, it is a case of washing the face and leaving the ears dirty. I am not asking for anything to be done this year because we must economize, but these are cases which certainly require attention just as much, if not more so, than the quarantine station at Partridge island. Therefore this $75,000 which was not expended last year certainly should not be expended this year.


Pius Michaud: In 1911 and before that application was made for a public building in my own town, which is a little larger than some of the small towns in the minister's province where the people have been given public buildings for several years past. During the last ten years the Treasury has received over half a million dollars in customs and post office revenues from my township, which is quite an item, and all the money has been spent throughout other parts of the country. Now I am informed that no public buildings will be erected this year, especially post offices. There is great necessity for a public building in the county of Madawaska, and I am urgently asked to interview the minister with a view to obtaining his favourable consideration to the erection of such a building. The population of my town is about six thousand. The post office is in a private building, and it is difficult for the public to be admitted when the mail arrives and is being sorted. When the minister is visiting some of the towns in his neighbouring province next summer I would like him to come to my town and see the conditions for himself. If he does, I am sure that he will realize how great is the necessity for the erection of a public building there, and for the provision of the required amount in the Estimates next year.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If the hon. member
will refer to page 44 of the Estimates he will see that there is provided an item of $162,000 towards the building of an international bridge across the St. John river from Edmundston to the state of Maine. I am sure the hon. member will agree that it would scarcely be reasonable to ask for the erection of public buildings in his county in addition to a boon requiring that large expenditure.


Pius Michaud: Not this year; I mean next year.


Mr. COPP:: My hon. friend has given as a reason for not acceding to the request of the member for Madawaska for a public building the fact that there is an item in the Estimates of $160,000 for the building of a bridge. I do not see anything in the Estimates to provide for the building of a bridge near my town, so the same objection could not be urged against the request which I have made for a post office and public building. However, that is not my reason for rising. We have heard a good deal of talk during the past two sessions about the League of Nations, but we hardly expected that one of the reasons given for the building of a quarantine station in St. John would be some demand or requirement on the part of the League of Nations. Now, I have had some correspondence and communications with the residents of St. John, and as far as I have been able to gather, that building is required there in order to meet the needs of the port, and I am glad that the minister is taking the necessary steps to have the work done. A great many immigrants go through Halifax and St. John, particularly during the winter months, and it is necessary that ample accommodation of this kind should be provided. The minister told us a few moments ago that part of this money had been expended. I commend the minister for having before him this evening the details with regard to certain matters in connection with which he was unable to inform us on a previous occasion. I would like to ask him now what part of this money has been expended, what work has been done so far, whether a contract has been let for any part of the work, and if so, what part.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: A portion of the vote
of which the item under consideration is a re-vote was required for the building of an addition to the third-class detention building at the St. John quarantine station, Partridge island. Tenders were called in December for the work, and four were

received, the lowest, that of Mr. J. E. Kane, $20,388.35, being accepted. The tenders ran from that figure up to $29,450. The lowest tender was accepted by authority of an Order in Council passed on January 10 of this year.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister mentioned
a sum of $260,000 requested by the Health Department for buildings at St. John, and he intimated that this vote of $75,000 was for the construction of buildings required for that department. Am I to understand that other buildings will be required later, involving the expenditure of additional money from year to year?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The Department of Health advise that this work is most urgently needed; in fact they say they will not be answerable if the building is not provided this year. Accordingly the contract of which I have given particulars to the hon. member for Westmoreland has been awarded. The Department of Public Works is hopeful that the expenditure for this year will be confined to $75,000.


Frank S. Cahill: But will $75,000 be an
end of the expenditure on this account, or will it be necessary to make expenditures from time to time until $260,000 is spent?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The building is described to the Department of Public Works as a self-contained unit. We have no reason to anticipate that the construction of the building will involve any further expenditure.


Frank S. Cahill: I notice at the bottom of item 130 the words "Appropriations not required for 1921-22." What is the explanation of that item?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: It is rendered necessary by the system of accounting followed by the Department of Finance. It represents appropriations asked for last year, but not spent and not required for this year, and which simply lapse.


Frank S. Cahill: It is given here as
$18,500. The total vote, exclusive of the $75,000 re-voted, would not amount to $18,500.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The only way in which my hon. friend would be able to have that perfectly clear in his mind would be by referring to last year's Estimates. Certain sums which were voted a year ago were not all required; the money was not all spent, nor is a revote required this year to the extent of $18,500. That represents

the unexpended and unrequired balance of the vote authorized by Parliament a year ago.


Frank S. Cahill: The column at the extreme right of the page giving a comparison, 1920-21, gives the total, $103,000. Am I to understand that that total does not include revotes?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The item of $103,000 is the total vote passed a year ago. $18,500 of that vote has not been spent and is not required.


Frank S. Cahill: If the minister will look at the column, he will find that there is not $18,500 in the total. It would look as though there was a decrease in the expenditure for the item.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The total is $103,000, being made up of $2,500 for Moncton examining warehouse; $7,000 for St. John Dominion building, improvements; $75,000 for St. John quarantine station, and appropriations not sjient, $18,500.


Frank S. Cahill: The Estimates show only three main items for last year for purposes of comparison. Some item must have been left out. .


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The items making up $18,500 are left out because no appropriation in respect to any of those items are required this year.


John Howard Sinclair: I am somewhat puzzled as to the necessity of this item of $75,000. The hon. member for Kent (Mr. Leger)-and he is well versed in matters relating to New Brunswick- thinks that it is not necessary to make this expenditure this year. The hon. member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp) thinks that it is required. The minister, when he is asked for an explanation, gives a dissertation from a memorandum supplied by the Deputy Minister of Health relating to the League of Nations, in which he tells us that in Central Europe there are certain diseases which require to be watched throughout the world, and amongst other places, the city of St. John. That is a very general statement. I should like to get a report from some man in charge of immigration in this country, showing that these further expenditures at St. John are necessary for immigration purposes; that this building is really needed for immigrants coming to St. John. Has the minister a report from the officer in charge instead of a far away story by the Deputy Minister of Health who
has given a general statement which covers not only the city of St. John, but every other part of the world, because it is necessary to prevent the spread of these diseases in St. John or anywhere else. We got along without this expenditure last year and the year before. Immigrants have been coming into St. John for many years. Is the number increasing? Why are we being asked for this large expenditure at this time when we want to save every dollar it is possible to save? The minister has not given a satisfactory explanation regarding this matter. I am not opposing it, but it is our duty in this committee to see that not one dollar is voted during the present session for any unnecessary purpose.


Mr. DENIS:: In the Estimates for New Brunswick there is an item- of $75,000 for quarantine purposes. If we look at the Estimates for Nova Scotia, we find that last year an amount of $250,000 was voted; that $100,000 was spent-


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Nothing spent at all.


Jean-Joseph Denis: I would ask the minister to give an explanation with regard to that. For Nova Scotia there is an item of $250,000 voted last year and nothing spent. This year, $150,000 is asked for. There is an item of $200,000 for a quarantine station at Grosse Isle in Quebec, and those three items all read about the same. For the province of Nova Scotia the item reads:
Halifax quarantine station, new buildings.
For the province of New Brunswick the item reads:
St. John quarantine station, Partridge Island, new buildings, repairs and improvements.
For the province of Quebec the item reads:
Grosse Isle, quarantine station, new buildings and repairs.
Therefore, we must come to the conclusion that evidently the Government is having new buildings erected in those three places. If we take into consideration the fact that, during the years immediately previous to the war, immigration was about double what it is to-day. I wonder how it is that these new buildings are of such immediate importance that they should be built now, especially when we all agree that this is no time for erecting new buildings, although it is right enough to repair buildings when that is absolutely necessary. We all know that it costs to-day about 50 per cent more to erect new buildings than it will probably in five years



REVISED EDITION. COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
from now. Consequently, to erect new buildings at the present time is as bad an investment as can be made. The other day the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Calder) said that for the last two years our immigration had been, on an average, 133,000 a year. For the three or four years previous to the war, the average immigration was over a quarter of a million. We are to-day asked for three appropriations in three provinces aggregating the enormous sum of $425,000. Why do we need additional buildings to-day at such an enormous cost to provide for an immigration which is only half what it was during years immediately previous to the war?
Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The answer is very
simple. The need for buildings of this character is not based on the total number of immigrants coming to the country, but rather on the necessity for guarding against contagious and infec-
10 p.m. tious diseases which come with these immigrants. I have read to the committee a memorandum prepared by the Department of Health and statements from other bodies, including the American Red Cross Society outlining present conditions in countries from which a certain portion of these immigrants come. As long as these scourges are raging in the countries of origin of these immigrants, I am sure members of the committee will agree that it is well for the authorities in this country to be on guard against such contingencies as the introduction of these communicable diseases into Canada. The hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) was not present at the sitting last evening; otherwise, he would not have asked this question regarding the Halifax building. There are appropriations for necessary quarantine stations at St. John, Halifax and Quebec, the three large and important ports which are concerned with immigration. The responsibility for the efficiency, or, rather the efficacy of measures taken to provide against the introduction of diseases in connection with immigration, rests with the officials of the Health Department.
My hon. friend from Antigonish and Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) wanted a report from some of the immigration officials at Partridge island. The report which I read to the committee a few moments ago from the Deputy Minister of Health is more than that. It is based, so I am advised, on the reports of the immi-

gration officials at Partridge island, and also on the personal observations of the Deputy Minister of Health, who himself visited these places and passed upon the requirements. There may be a difference of opinion with regard to the total amount of the expenditures ' required. The Department of Health has asked for the sums that I have mentioned. No less than any member of this committee, those charged with the responsibility of erecting these buildings, would like to see the expenditures kept down to the lowest feasible amount. As I stated to the committee last evening, in the case of the Halifax station it would appear to be possible by the reconstruction of the quarantine station on Lawlor's island to give the necessary quarantine services called for, instead; of erecting new buildings elsewhere. However, I covered that question fully last evening. With regard to the St. John requisition, I am confident that this vote of $75,000, although it may not provide all the buildings which the Deputy Minister of Health thinks should be provided, will enable that department to carry on its service and at the same time avoid unnecessary expenditure of public money.


John Howard Sinclair: How
many patients can be accommodated at St John with the present facilities?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have not that information here, but I shall be glad to get it and forward it to my hon. friend.


John Howard Sinclair: I think it is essential that we should have that information. I should also like to know how many patients were treated there during the year 1920.


Auguste Théophile Léger: The accommodation at
St. John used to be ample for the requirements. There are not so many immigrants coming in now, and I think the present accommodation should be sufficient.


John Howard Sinclair: I
think it is essential that the committee should be given the information that we hate asked for. We are asked to vote money for the erection of new buildings, but we have not been given a word of information as to whether or not the present facilities are sufficient to accommodate the immigrants that are coming there. That information is the first I would expect from the minister. Does the officer in charge at St. John say that he needs more room, that he has more patients than he can accommodate?

Every one of course, will agree with the general statement of the Deputy Minister of Health that the country ought to look after people who come in here with diseases, and I hope we have been doing that in the past; but we are now being asked to vote a sum of money for buildings in three provinces, and we have not been given a single item of information to show the necessity for this increased accommodation. The medical officer in 'charge of these patients at St. John must know something about it. If there is necessity for enlarging the present accommodation, why does he not say so? The statements made by the Deputy Minister of Health are very general. He did not come down to a single detail. He did not tell us for instance how many beds they had, how many wards they had, how many they would like, or how many patients they accommodated last year. He simply makes the general observation that under the League of Nations these matters must me looked after. With that statement, of course, everybody will agree, but the minister should give us detailed information on the points I have mentioned. As a business man I would expect him to look into this thing and satisfy himself that the expenditure is necessary. My hon. friend has a reputation in the Maritime Provinces as a hard-headed business man, and I would like him to maintain that reputation in the House of Commons. We have been looking forward to a successful administration'of the Department of Public Works under his management, and it would be very disappointing for us to think that he was going to embark upon an expenditure of this kind without having first satisfied himself that the expenditure is necessary. It may be necessary, but I do not thnk we have been given the details from the minister to show that it is absolutely necessary.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the details. This amount of $75,000 is required towards the following new works and repairs as asked for by the Department of Public Health. The details are as follows:
1.	Disinfector and power plant bldg, $76,000
2.	New third-class detention foldg, $100,000.
3.	Addition to existing third-class bldg. Lowest tender, $20,388.
4.	New wharf for low tide accommodation (Chief Engineer).
5.	Two, pair semi-detached cottages (one six room type and one 8 rooms), $30,000.
6.	New ice house 15 x 20 x 10, $1,200.
7.	Approx. 200 ft. fencings, $1,400.
8.	Elec, lighting system for entire station $15,000.
1781	11
The following are also required:
Alterations, repairs and furniture
9.	Residence, Chief Medical Officer.
Residence, Asst. Medical Officer.
10.	Quarantine hospital carpenter work.
Major quarantine hospital plastering.
11.	Detention bldg. 1st class.
Detention bldg. 2nd class.
Detention bldg. 3rd class.
12.	Ablution building, removal.
13.	Quarantine auxiliary bldg. (B).
14.	Contingencies, repairs to roofs.
15.	Painting externally.
Painting internally.
16.	Furniture, 1st class det. bldg, supplied.
2nd class det. bldg.
3rd class det. bldg.
Auxiliary quar. bldg.
Quarantine hospital.
Major Quar. hospital.
Residences.
My hon. friend knows very well that it would hardly be possible for the Minister of Public Works to visit and personally inspect all these buildings to ascertain exactly what was required in the nature of additional accommodation. This vote which is now called in question, was assented to unanimously by the committee last year. I submit that I have sufficient- details to justify the committee in passing this item, but if there are any further details my hon. friend wishes to have, if he will express his wishes, I shall be very glad to secure the information from the Department of Health and forward it to him.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is one line of argument that is followed by the minister which I think he should drop at the earliest possible moment. The mere fact that an item of expenditure may have slipped through the committee last year without any critical examination is no reason in the world why the same item should not be criticised when it comes up again this year. The fact that this committee made a mistake once and failed to do their duty ' is no reason why they should repeat the mistake.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I do not think they made a mistake last year.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is our duty to get the facts. Last night we were kept here all hours of the night listening to the argument of the minister, that because the committee had passed a certain item last year they could not consistently oppose it this year. Man after man in the committee was put down by the minister with this argument: You voted for this last year; you have committed the unpardonable sin; you are not permitted to put forward an argument at all, because you were a mem-

ber of the committee that passed this item last year; it makes no difference whether you read the item or not, you were a member of the committee and the item went through; you are therefore held culpable. It is not for me to give any instructions to the minister. I think he can very well strike on a stronger argument and one that will give him very much less trouble than to say to members on this side that, because they happened to be hear last year when these items went through, therefore their mouths are shut and they are not allowed to say anything further in criticism. My hon. friend from Guysborough is always reasonable in connection with criticisms of this kind, and he says that he is not satisfied with the information given. It is not to be expected that the Minister of Public Works should go to any port and take dimensions of buildings and investigate the conditions, but he is supposed to have officers who will do this work. The necessity of protecting the interests of the country, as well as protecting the Department of Public Works, requires that an engineer of that department should visit the ground and report to the minister upon every item of expenditure of this class. If the minister says that he has a report from his engineer, after having visited, and examined these buildings in St. John, that the report is in favour of doing this work in order to meet the necessities of the port, and that the proper requirements in general have been complied with in connection with this vote, then there is no fault to find. The trouble is we have not that information. The minister does not appear to have it, or else he declines to impart it to the committee.


Frank S. Cahill: The minister mentioned a $75,000 re-vote. Was that not passed as a Supplementary Estimate last year?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I think it was a Supplementary Estimate last year.


Frank S. Cahill: If the minister takes the ground, as he did last night, that we must be regarded as supporting every item we do not vote against we shall in future have to vote against every item in order to save ourselves from the accusation of supporting everything that comes down to the House at all times. I think the minister is rather unfair to members of the Opposition in taking such a stand as that. Supplementary Estimataes are often hurriedly passed during the very last hours of the session. We are not responsible for

that, and yet the minister accuses us of supporting items because we did not vote against them. That is hardly a fair attitude for him to take.


Auguste Théophile Léger: I was in the House last year when these Estimates came up and I did not oppose them because I thought they were absolutely necessary. The votes were not expended, and up to last fall nothing was done. In October or November there was " a great demonstration " in St. John and tenders were invited immediately afterward. That is what causes me to entertain suspicions in connection with this expenditure.


John Howard Sinclair: I want to follow up my question and get an answer from the minister. Has he received any report from any of his officials in St. John, or in the province of New Brunswick, showing the necessity for this expenditure?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The Deputy Minister of Health advises that his recommendation is based on the report of his officer at Patridge island, supplemented by its own personal observations.


John Howard Sinclair: If I
remember rightly the report that was read from the Deputy Minister of Health made no special reference to the necessity of having anything done at St. John-that is he gave no more details than are already in our possession?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I have read a long
statement of details, and I am perfectly willing to read the statement again if my hon. friend wishes me to do so.


John Howard Sinclair: I do
not think there is any necessity for that.


Frank S. Cahill: Who made the recommendation?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: The Deputy Minister
of Health.


John Howard Sinclair: If the report contains the answers to the questions I have asked I would like to have that information, but I did not gather that it does. One question was: What is the present accommodation for patients at that quarantine station? The other is: How many patients were treated last Jrear? These are the kind of details I want. A general statement as to the necessity of having facilities at these ports will be accepted by everybody, but what I am looking for is something special from the medical officer at St. John or some one in

authority, to show why an extension of the present equipment is required.


Pius Michaud: You already have a building for immigration purposes. Is this exepnditure to provide an addition to the old building?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This is for an extension to the existing accommodations. The information that the hon. member for Antigonish and Guysborough asks for is without doubt in the Department of Public Health. I have not that particular information in my notes but, as I have already told the committee, I will he glad to see that the hon. gentleman's request goes to the Department of Public Health and I am sure the information for which he asks will be forthcoming.


John Howard Sinclair: In the meantime what are we to do with the item?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: 
Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I do not quite understand where the practice of dumping everything on the Department of Public Works originated. It is an old practice and one that apparently is hard to get away from. If the Militia Department wants an armoury I cannot understand why it should go to the Public Works Department, why it should not build that armoury itself, because the first-hand information is in that department. The same thing is true about the Department of Public Health. If that department needs quarantine buildings why does it not build them? It has in its possession first-hand information from its own officers and public money is at its disposal. Why then does it not undertake the construction of the necessary buildings under the supervision of its own officers? I am not blaming the minister for the practice that has grown up, but it would be a very wholesome custom for him when he is putting through items of expenditure that do not particularly belong to his own department to have here the deputy minister, or some other official, of the department concerned, with the necessary information. If that is not to be done we must insist upon getting the information from the minister himself and let him go into the highways and byways and get that information in the best way he can. It would be no great hardship to secure the attendance of the deputy minister of the department immediately interested. We must not be deprived of the necessary information because the items of expenditure do not relate particularly to the Department of Public Works. If the minister and his own officers, have not the information the item should stand until the officer is brought here who can give the committee in a business-like and straightforward way all the facts they require. Nobody wants to block the Estimates; nobody is refusing to provide needed accommodation at any Canadian port. It is only business for us, representing as we do the owners of the money invested, to see that everything is done in a right and proper way, that the necessary information is forthcoming, that there are no loop holes about it, and that no money will be expended ahead of time or to a greater extent than is necessary to meet the public interests.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection with this contract and other contracts of the department, is the practice followed of inserting fair wage schedules and conditions for the protection of labour?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Are those
schedules prepared by officers of the Department of Labour or of the Department of Public Works?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: By officers of the Department of Labour.


Arthur Bliss Copp: I would like to have the minister's attention for a few moments with regard to the item of $1,000 for accommodation for the Moncton examining warehouse. Last year the vote was $2,500. What building were the repairs made upon, and what is the building used for?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: This amount is required for the installation of a table and bunks for parcels in the Higgins building, 691 Main Street, Moncton, which is now occupied by the Customs Department as an examining warehouse.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The building which is now used as a post office and customs house in

Moncton was erected shortly after Confederation when the present city was a mere village. It was then located at What was supposed to be the centre of the community, but the city has grown in a direction away from that building, so that it is now located at the extreme end of the town and does not accommodate the public generally. Moncton being a railway centre has grown from year to year, but during the past eight or ten years it has made exceptionally rapid progress, until to-day it is a city of between twenty thousand and twenty-five thousand people. Under these circumstances it is unnecessary for me to take further time to convince the committee and the minister that the building in question is absolutely too small to accommodate the local business. Last year the net postal revenue from Moncton amounted to the large sum of $300,000. A few weeks ago I had occasion to be in Moncton and walking along one of the streets far removed from the business centre, in fact in one of the back streets, I found on the corner of a garage the sign of the customs house. My hon. friend must know that, if not a disgrace, such a condition of affairs is a very great inconvenience to the people, and undoubtedly they are entitled to better accommodation. What I am now saying I have already expressed to the minister personally, and I hope he will take action. Last week a delegation waited on him in regard to this matter, and I notice in the newspaper reports that they were received with very great courtesy by him. Having had a week to think it over, I sincerely trust that my hon. friend will now be able to tell me that he and his colleague from New Brunswick-* two young, active and influential members of Parliament-will be able to convince their colleagues that Moncton should be given fair and reasonable consideration in this regard.
What I have said as to Moncton applies with equal or possibly stronger force to the town of Sackville. Sackville is the seat of Mount Allison University, and hundreds of students, yea, this year up to a thousand, and we trust in a very few years from now thousands, will be attending the university from all over the Maritime Provinces as well as from other parts of the Dominion, spending three or four years there as citizens. Notwithstanding the requirements of these students as well as the regular residents of the town there is no acceptable place for any citizen to go and get his mail. The old fMr. Oopp.]
Kitchen Building which now does duty as a post office was ready to tumble down before I was born, and that is some time ago. As far back as 1911 or 1912 property was purchased for the erection of a new building, and it does seem to me that there is no good reason why my hon. friend should not make arrangements for the erection of this very necessary public building.
I know my hon. friend will say that I am inconsistent because while criticising the expenditure of money in other quarters I am at the same time asking for its expenditure in these particular localities. But there are many places in the province of New Brunswick where I would like to see public money expended in ordinary times, but where I would not ask any government to incur expenditure under present conditions. But I do say, as I said last night in regard to the Annapolis post office, that I believe the Government are under an implied contract with the people to supply them with reasonably proper facilities for the conduct of the public business. What is true of these two particular localities is true of other places, I have no doubt, and I would advise my hon. friend and the Government to go over their Estimates again and carefully cull out what can be dispensed with for the present in order that they may give to the people what is absolutely necessary for the proper conduct of their public business.
I sincerely trust that my hon. friend between now and the close of the session when the Supplementary Estimates are brought down will see his way clear, supported, as I say, by my hon. friend the Minister of Customs, who knows the situation better than I do, to have these two particular cases looked after. I want to take this opportunity of expressing as strongly as I can the importance of providing these two much needed public buildings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maritime Provinces generally - Dominion public buildings: improvements, repairs, etc., $25,000.
Auguste Théophile Léger: Is Prince Edward Island
included in the division of the Maritime Provinces?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes for the purposes of this vote. This is a vote which is asked for annually for the purpose of carrying out ordinary improvements and Repairs which are not covered by special or other general appropriation. It is not possible, of course to come to Parliament with a

separate estimate for every small enpendi-ture. These items run all the way from one dollar up, and they come out of this fund, which is administered by officials of the department, so far as my observation goes, with a great deal of care.


Auguste Théophile Léger: All I can say it that I hope the public buildings in Kent county will have their share?


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister has an officer down there, I understand, to look after these public buildings.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Yes, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. CHISjHOLM:	I suggest that the
minister instruct Mr. Bishop to look into a little difficulty in connection with the public building at Inverness town. It appears that the rain dropping from the roof of the public buildings is destroying the dwelling house of a neighbour. It is only a small matter, but it is of importance to the owner of the building.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I shall see that the
matter receives attention.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queen's P.E.I.) :: What amount out of this vote was spent last year on buildings in Prince Edward Island?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Out of the appropriation of last year, $25,000, the amount, of $24,987.29 was spent.


John Ewen Sinclair: Can the minister say what buildings the expenditure was made on, where they are located, and how much was spent on each?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I shall be glad to send my hon. friend the full details.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Nearly twenty years ago a branch of the Public Works Department was established in the town of North Sydney. We had three or four engineers and quite a staff; the men had their homes there-


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: If my hon. friend will permit me to interrupt, I would point out that on page 44 of the Estimates there is an item with regard to the engineering services. I intimated to the committee on Wednesday evening that I had a statement to make with regard to the engineering services, and if my hon. friend will defer his question until that time, I shall be glad to answer any questions that may be asked. Of course, I am prepared to answer him this evening if he wishes, but the matter could more appropriately be discussed then.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Perhaps the minister will permit me to finish; I was in the middle of a sentence. My complaint is
that he has treated North Sydney in a very unkindly way, and when he gets to that other item I shall discuss the matter further. There was no justification for taking this institution away from our town except the desire on the part of the minister to take everything to Halifax. We had the headquarters of the one steamer belonging to the Public Works Department at North Sydney-the proper place for a steamer doing work along that coast, but the steamer had to be taken away too. I say now that when the proper item is under consideration I shall lodge my complaint at the door of the department, and particularly of the minister, for taking away that part of our population and all that it meant to us. The people of North Sydney will remember the Tory Government and the Department of Public Works and all the paraphernalia of this Admin-tration when they are asked to express an opinion regarding the Government's conduct.


William Stevens Fielding: I desire to draw the minister's attention to a case which I think is already engaging the mind of the department. I refer to the post office at Clark's Harbour, Shelburne county. Clark's Harbour is now an incorporated town, and with the natural ambition of a young, progressive community they have sent in an application for a new public building. I quite concur in the view that large public buildings of an expensive character cannot be undertaken at present, but the need for at least a temporary accommodation in this case is very great. I simply desire to urge the importance of having something done in this respect as soon as possible.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: Representations have
come to the department, initiated by the postmaster at Clark's Harbour, who, I believe, sent word that the offices which for years had been used as a post office there would no longer be available. Speaking from memory, I believe that a proposal was made by the postmaster that other accommodations of a very satisfactory nature could be obtained, but later advices were received from him that his expectations in that regard had failed of fulfilment. But the department is still looking for improved premises at Clark's Harbour. I quite appreciate the point put forward by my hon. friend and I assure him that the very natural desires of the people of Clark's Harbour will have most sympathetic consideration.


John Howard Sinclair: With
reference to the point raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton, I would like to ask the minister what has been done with regard to the reorganization of the Public Works Department in Nova Scotia, and how it atfects the office in Antigonish? The committee has not had any statement as to what policy the minister has adopted in regard to the changes made.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: As I intimated to the hon. member for North Cape Breton, I have a statement to make in regard to engineering services when item No. 154 comes up for consideration. I shall then have much pleasure in covering my hon. friend's question.
Saskatchewan-Public buildings, $20,000.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I do not complain about the minister not spending money, but I would like to ask how it comes that Saskatchewan, a province with a population the third largest in the Dominion, has a vote of $20,000 for public buildings while Nova Scotia has a vote of $207,000, and other provinces in proportion?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: We are simply asking Parliament to give us the vote reported by our officials in Saskatchewan as being necessary to take care of casual matters coming up in connection with the public buildings.


John Frederick Johnston: In the interest of
economy, it might be a good move for the minister to send his Saskatchewan officials down to Nova Scotia or some of the other provinces for a year or two.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: We had a long sitting last night, and we have had an expeditious sitting to-night, having put a good deal of business through. I therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
On motion of Hon. Mr. Reid the House adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, May, 2, 1921.